Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelínek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2012-02-28 19:30:58
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dne 28. února 2012 17:48 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> napsal(a):
> I have a few comments about this patch:
> I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses
> SPI instead of just a FunctionCallN to call the checker function.  I
> think this should be easily avoidable.

It is not possible - or it has not simple solution (I don't how to do
it). PLpgSQL_checker is SRF function. SPI is used for processing
returned resultset. I looked to pg source code, and I didn't find any
other pattern than using SPI for SRF function call. It is probably
possible, but it means some code duplication too. I invite any ideas.

> Second, I see that functioncmds.c gets a lot into trigger internals just
> to be able to figure out the function starting from a trigger name.  I
> think it'd be saner to have a new function in trigger.c that returns the
> required function OID.


> I think CheckFunction would be clearer if the code to check multiple
> objects is split out into a separate subroutine.


> After CheckFunction there is a leftover function comment without any
> following function.  There are other spurious hunks that add or remove
> single lines too (once in an otherwise untouched file).



I refreshed patch for current git repository.



> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Attachment: check_function-2012-02-28-2.diff.gz
Description: application/x-gzip (29.0 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2012-02-28 19:33:08
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-28 19:21:41
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group