| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane *EXTERN*" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-12-02 20:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD2ka8epjJJg5KDUJXHEo+jDRCjhW6pCeDZeK4FLwrQEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/2 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Hello
>
>>
>> My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
>> checker functions:
>>
>> CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
>> [ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])
>>
>
some other idea about other using CHECK FUNCTION
CHECK FUNCTION func(args)
RETURNS ... AS $$
$$ LANGUAGE xxx
This should to do check of function body without affect on registered
function. This is addition to previous defined syntax.
Nice a day
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-12-02 20:49:17 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-12-02 20:42:21 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |