| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Date: | 2012-03-09 20:09:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1331323787.23681.6.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tor, 2012-03-08 at 23:15 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> But you propose some little bit different than is current plpgsql
> checker and current design.
Is it? Why? It looks like exactly the same thing, except that the
interfaces you propose are tightly geared toward checking SQL-like
languages, which looks like a mistake to me.
> It's not bad, but it is some different and it is not useful for
> plpgsql - external stored procedures are different, than SQL
> procedures and probably you will check different issues.
>
> I don't think so multiple checkers and external checkers are necessary
> - if some can living outside, then it should to live outside. Internal
> checker can be one for PL language. It is parametrized - so you can
> control goals of checking.
What would be the qualifications for being an internal or an external
checker? Why couldn't your plpgsql checker be an external checker?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-09 20:10:28 | Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2012-03-09 20:09:43 | Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label |