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

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2073C85B9@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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"?

I don't know what is most natural or convenient.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Albe Laurenz"
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Next
From: Lionel Elie Mamane
Date:
Subject: LibreOffice driver 1: Building libpq with Mozilla LDAP instead of OpenLDAP