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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobXJ0hiPU5tkExNMzsbZUVkwYPYMVm=O4_o8rhbpPpNcw@mail.gmail.com
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
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...)

?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement