Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: "Tom Lane *EXTERN*" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2011-12-08 14:07:07
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBTCA=A_QR8ry0k3+zDLM=HPDP8Gd3YBmKkSuntJ-1UUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

updated version

changes:

* CHECK FUNCTION ALL; is enabled - in this case functions from
pg_catalog schema are ignored

I looked on parser, and I didn't other changes there - IN SCHEMA, FOR
ROLE are used more time there, so our usage will be consistent

Regards

Pavel

2011/12/7 Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> The syntax error messages are still inadequate; all I can get is
>>> 'syntax error at or near "%s"'.  They should be more detailed.
>>
>> this system is based on error messages that generates a plpgsql engine
>> or bison engine. I can correct only a few percent from these messages
>> :(
>>
>> internally I didn't wrote a compiler or plpgsql checker - this is just
>> tool that can emit some plpgsql interpret subprocess - and when these
>> subprocesses raises exceptions, then takes their messages.
>
> I see.
>
>>> I think that at least the documentation should be improved before
>>> I am ready to set this as "ready for committer".
>>
>> please, can you send a correction to documentation or error messages?
>>
>> I am not able to write documentation
>
> I'll give it a try.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe

Attachment Content-Type Size
check_function-2011-12-08-1.diff text/x-patch 96.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2011-12-08 15:34:10 Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2011-12-08 10:41:56 Re: Allow substitute allocators for PGresult.