Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Date: 2012-03-10 00:56:26
Message-ID: 9238.1331340986@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> But then I would have to map all language-specific error reports to some
> SQL error scheme, which is not only cumbersome but pretty useless. For
> example, a Python programmer will be familiar with the typical output
> that pylint produces and how to fix it. If we hide that output behind
> the layer of SQL-ness, that won't make things easier to anyone.

Yeah, this is a good point. I'm willing to concede that we are not
close to having a uniform API that could be used for checker functions,
so maybe what we should do for now is just invent
plpgsql_check_function(regprocedure). I'd still like to see the
question revisited sometime in the future, but it would be appropriate
to have a few working examples of popular checker functions for
different languages before we try to invent a common API.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-03-10 01:15:58 Re: lateral function as a subquery - WIP patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-03-10 00:50:29 Re: pg_crypto failures with llvm on OSX