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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBvi_qrsAbjzoageOg2pSbBGn2=iemuqpbN_ndvaTCVnQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> One thing I forgot to mention:
>>> I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
>>> to pass options to the checker function:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>>
>>> I think this should be there so that the API does not have to be
>>> changed in the future.
>>>
>
>> there is just one question - how propagate options to check functions
>>
>> I am thinking about third parameter - probably text array
>
> Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type "internal"?
>

this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we
cannot to call check function directly

Regards

Pavel




> I don't know what is most natural or convenient.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alex Goncharov
Date:
Subject: libpq: PQcmdStatus, PQcmdTuples signatures can be painlessly improved
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers