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

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Petr Jelínek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:48:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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).

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-02-28 16:49:11
Subject: strange plan - PostgreSQL 9.2
Previous:From: karavelovDate: 2012-02-28 16:47:49
Subject: Re: swapcache-style cache?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group