Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(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 20:44:02
Message-ID: 1330461568-sup-4846@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly
identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not
take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if
it's really worthwhile having a bunch of separate productions for this;
how about we just use the existing explain_option_list instead and get
rid of those extra productions?

elog() is used in many user-facing messages (errors and notices). Full
ereport() calls should be used there, so that messages are marked for
translations and so on.

Does the patched pg_dump work with older servers?

I don't like CheckFunction being declared in defrem.h. It seems
completely out of place there. I don't see any better place though, so
I'm thinking maybe we should have a new header file for it (say
commands/functions.h; but we already have executor/functions.h so
perhaps it's better to find another name). This addition means that
there's a distressingly large number of .c files that are now getting
dest.h, which was previously pretty confined.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-28 21:01:39 Re: strange plan - PostgreSQL 9.2
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2012-02-28 20:41:13 Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement