Re: patch: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2011-11-14 20:04:26
Message-ID: CAA-aLv7rwBe0xeXVTna6kDpWf=PkQjtXQZUPz-Hzk-Kc0QCZPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6 October 2011 12:52, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am sending a version with regress tests and basic documentation

Hi Pavel,

I think this sentence needs rewriting:

"checkfunction is the name of a previously registered function that
will be called when a new function in the language is created, to
check the function by statemnt CHECK FUNCTION or CHECK TRIGGER."

to something like:

"checkfunction is the name of an existing function that will be called
whenever a CHECK FUNCTION or CHECK TRIGGER is requested on a function
written in the language."

And shouldn't this apply to ALTER LANGUAGE too?

And there seem to be copy/paste symptoms in
doc/src/sgml/ref/check_function.sgml where it shows the definition of
CREATE FUNCTION and CREATE TRIGGER instead of CHECK FUNCTION and CHECK
TRIGGER.

In src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h there's the error message "there are
no plan for query:". This should probably read "there is no plan for
query:". This appears more than once.

And "cannot to identify real type for record type variable" doesn't
sound right. Firstly "to" shouldn't be in there, and referring to a
"real" type is ambiguous as there is a data type called "real". This
appears at least twice.

In src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c:

"cannot to determine a result of dynamic SQL" should be "cannot
determine result of dynamic SQL".

Also, I recommend rebasing this patch as it doesn't apply cleanly. In
particular, the following fail:

src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_funcs.c
src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out
src/test/regress/sql/plpgsql.sql

I haven't tried actually testing the patch itsel, but I will probably
give it a go if a rebased version appears. :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-11-14 20:07:54 Re: Concurrent CREATE TABLE/DROP SCHEMA leaves inconsistent leftovers
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-14 19:47:17 Re: strict aliasing (was: const correctness)