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

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: "Tom Lane *EXTERN*" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2011-12-02 20:47:02
Message-ID: CAFj8pRD2ka8epjJJg5KDUJXHEo+jDRCjhW6pCeDZeK4FLwrQEA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2011/12/2 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Hello
>
>>
>> My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
>> checker functions:
>>
>> CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
>>  [ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])
>>
>

some other idea about other using CHECK FUNCTION

CHECK FUNCTION func(args)
RETURNS ... AS $$

$$ LANGUAGE xxx

This should to do check of function body without affect on registered
function. This is addition to previous defined syntax.

Nice a day

Pavel

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-12-02 20:49:17
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-12-02 20:42:21
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group