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

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2049FCE7B@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to patch: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
List pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> My attempt at a syntax that could also cover Peter's wish for multiple
>> checker functions:
>>
>> CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }
>>  [ USING check_function ] OPTIONS (optname optarg [, ...])

> check_function should be related to one language, so you have to
> specify language if you would to specify check_function (if we would
> to have more check functions for one language).

Right, I forgot LANGUAGE:

CHECK FUNCTION { func(args) | ALL IN LANGUAGE pl [IN SCHEMA schema] [FOR ROLE user] }[ USING check_function ] OPTIONS
(optnameoptarg [, ...]) 

If func(args) is given, the language can be inferred.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: Prep object creation hooks, and related sepgsql updates
Next
From: Brar Piening
Date:
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches