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

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Pavel Stehule *EXTERN*" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
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: 2011-12-03 11:02:13
Message-ID: D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2049FCE7B@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 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 [, ...])

> check_function should be related to one language, so you have to
> specify language if you would to specify check_function (if we would
> to have more check functions for one language).

Right, I forgot LANGUAGE:

CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL IN LANGUAGE pl [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
 [ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])

If func(args) is given, the language can be inferred.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brar PieningDate: 2011-12-03 12:59:58
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Previous:From: Kohei KaiGaiDate: 2011-12-03 08:43:27
Subject: Re: Prep object creation hooks, and related sepgsql updates

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