| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelínek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2012-03-03 06:01:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1330754388-sup-5287@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
> > Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
> > directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
> > few SPI lines. I don't understand why you don't like SPI.
I don't dislike SPI in general. I just dislike using it internally in
the backend. Other than RI, it's not used anywhere.
> > It is used more times in code for similar purpose.
>
> this disallow direct PL check function call - so any more complex
> situation cannot be solved by SQL, but must be solved by PL/pgSQL with
> dynamic SQL
Nonsense. Where did you get this idea? I did not touch the plpgsql
code at all, it'd still work exactly as in your original patch.
--
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 | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-03 06:03:25 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-03 05:45:06 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |