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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id 1322669300-sup-8099@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
List pgsql-hackers
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)

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


pgsql-hackers by date:

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