| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Date: | 2012-03-08 21:54:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1331243673.1197.23.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On ons, 2012-03-07 at 12:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I might agree with you if we had more than one checker function, but
> right now we are proposing to implement this for PL/pgsql and only
> PL/pgsql. It seems to me that we can add that when and if a second
> checker function shows up, if it still seems like a good idea.
I had mentioned upthread that I would like to use this for PL/Python.
There are a number of code quality checkers out there for Python. I
currently have 3 hooked into Emacs, and 2 or 3 are typically used in the
builds of projects I'm working on. All of these are shipped separately
from Python.
This leads to the following requirements:
* Multiple checkers per language must be supported.
* It must be possible to add checkers to a language after it is
created. For example, a checker could be shipped in an
extension.
* It's not terribly important to me to be able to run checkers
separately. If I wanted to do that, I would just disable or
remove the checker.
* Just to make things interesting, it should be possible to
implement checkers for language X in language X.
If it would help, given an API (even if only in C at the moment), I
could probably write up one or two checker function prototypes that
could be run against the PL/Python regression test corpus.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-08 21:56:20 | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-03-08 21:49:23 | Re: regress bug |