On 05.02.22 00:55, Chapman Flack wrote:
> I'm thinking plhandler.sgml is the only place that really needs to be
> said; readers looking up CREATE TRANSFORM and using an existing PL that
> supports it don't need to know how the sausage is made. (Maybe it is
> worth mentioning there, though, that it isn't possible to develop
> transforms for an arbitrary PL unless that PL applies transforms.)
makes sense
> I noticed the CREATE TRANSFORM docs show the argument list as
> (argument_type [, ...]) even though check_transform_function will reject
> any argument list of length other than 1 or with type other than internal.
> Is that an overly-generic way to show the syntax, or is that a style
> with precedent elsewhere in the docs?
That could be corrected.
> As long as a PL handler has the sole responsibility for invoking
> its transforms, I wonder if it would make sense to allow a PL to
> define what its transforms should look like, maybe replacing
> check_transform_function with a transform_validator for the PL.
> I'm not proposing such a patch here, but I am willing to prepare
> one for plhandler.sgml and maybe pltemplate.c documenting the current
> situation, if nobody tells me I'm wrong about something here.
Maybe. This kind of thing would mostly be driven what a PL wants in
actual practice, and then how that could be generalized to many/all PLs.
