| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-11-30 16:14:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCzkjVz-8Cxgq08vmweanP7uvDuRrgchv+GMYjeR5sOgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:
>
>> A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
>> it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
>> control which checks are applied. And I see no provision for that here.
>> This is not something we can add later, at least not without breaking
>> the API for the check function --- and if we're willing to break API,
>> why not just add some more parameters to the validator and avoid having
>> a second function?
>
> How about
>
> CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)
this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?
Pavel
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-30 16:17:43 | Re: Add minor version to v3 protocol to allow changes without breaking backwards compatibility |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-30 16:13:58 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |