| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-11-30 16:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobXJ0hiPU5tkExNMzsbZUVkwYPYMVm=O4_o8rhbpPpNcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> On the whole, it might not be a bad idea to have two allowed signatures
> for the validator function, rather than inventing an additional column
> in pg_language. But the fundamental point IMHO is that there needs to
> be a provision to pass language-dependent validation options to the
> function, whether it's the existing validator or a separate checker
> entry point.
Something like:
CHECK FUNCTION proname(proargs) WITH (...fdw-style elastic options...)
?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-11-30 16:06:02 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-30 15:53:42 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |