Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2011-11-29 18:38:28
Message-ID: 1322591849-sup-4633@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar nov 29 14:37:24 -0300 2011:
> 2011/11/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> > I don't think renaming is necessary.  plpgsql is a standalone shared
> > library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself.
> >
> > Possibly a larger question, though, is whether you really need a new
> > source file.  If that results in having to export functions that
> > otherwise could stay static, maybe it's not the best choice.
>

> Some refactoring of pl_exec should be nice - a management of row,
> record variables and array fields is part that can be shared with
> SQL/PSM interpret. But I have not idea how it realize.

I proposed at the PL summit that perhaps we should have some sort of PL
lib that would be shared by plpgsql and plpsm, to reduce code
duplication.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Kundrát 2011-11-29 18:39:40 Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-29 17:51:55 Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message