| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-11-30 16:19:05 |
| Message-ID: | 12717.1322669945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>> How about
>> CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)
> this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all?
It seems pretty awkward to me, particularly putting the options before
the second keyword of the command --- that could bite us if we ever want
some other flavors of CHECK command. I prefer Robert's suggestion of a
WITH clause at the end.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Abbate | 2011-11-30 16:21:03 | Re: Reserved words and delimited identifiers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-30 16:17:43 | Re: Add minor version to v3 protocol to allow changes without breaking backwards compatibility |