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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRCZXVexkRMxzn0hPwBS6hCMY_f79U1+xRLeymMbqUaO3w@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  ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
hello

2011/12/12 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> there is merged patch
>
> Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers
> in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings.
>
> 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

??
Regards

Pavel

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Tachoires
Date:
Subject: Re: patch : Allow toast tables to be moved to a different tablespace
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?