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

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C20752B214@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
> 
> I changed implementation of interface:
> 
> * checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it
> necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it
> allow to use better structured data then ExceptionData

[...]

> * result of CHECK FUNCTION is simple table (like EXPLAIN - based on
> Tom proposition)

I don't have the time for a complete review, but I tried the patch
and found:

It is in context diff and applies to current master (there is fuzz 1
in one hunk). It contains documentation and regression tests.
Compiles without warnings and passes regression tests.

The two or three CHECK FUNCTIONs I ran worked ok.

The documentation (that I wrote) will need to get updated: currently
it states in two places that the checker function should throw a
warning if it encounters a problem.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: Standalone synchronous master