From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2011-11-29 18:38:28 |
Message-ID: | 1322591849-sup-4633@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar nov 29 14:37:24 -0300 2011:
> 2011/11/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> > I don't think renaming is necessary. plpgsql is a standalone shared
> > library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself.
> >
> > Possibly a larger question, though, is whether you really need a new
> > source file. If that results in having to export functions that
> > otherwise could stay static, maybe it's not the best choice.
>
> Some refactoring of pl_exec should be nice - a management of row,
> record variables and array fields is part that can be shared with
> SQL/PSM interpret. But I have not idea how it realize.
I proposed at the PL summit that perhaps we should have some sort of PL
lib that would be shared by plpgsql and plpsm, to reduce code
duplication.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Kundrát | 2011-11-29 18:39:40 | Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-29 17:51:55 | Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message |