Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

On 04.04.2012 19:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't think I'm getting my point across by explaining, so here's a
>> modified version of the patch that does what I was trying to say.
>
> Minor side point: some of the diff noise in this patch comes from
> s/copy_plpgsql_datum/plpgsql_copy_plpgsql_datum/, which seems entirely
> useless. The name already contains "plpgsql", and even if it didn't,
> there is no particular reason for plpgsql to worry about polluting
> global symbol namespace. Nothing else resolves against its symbols
> anyway, at least not on any platform we claim to support. I would
> therefore also argue against the other renamings like
> s/exec_move_row/plpgsql_exec_move_row/.

Agreed. Looking closer, I'm not sure we even need to expose
exec_move_row() to pl_check.c. It's only used to initialize row-type
function arguments to NULL. But variables that are not explicitly
initialized are NULL anyway, and the checker shouldn't use the values
stored in variables for anything, so I believe that initialization in
function_check() can be replaced with something much simpler or removed
altogether.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com