Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id 12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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...)

Great minds think alike ... that was pretty much exactly the syntax that
was in the back of my mind.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement