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: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date: 2011-12-12 15:55:35
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCZXVexkRMxzn0hPwBS6hCMY_f79U1+xRLeymMbqUaO3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

hello

2011/12/12 Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> there is merged patch
>
> Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers
> in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings.
>
> One thing I forgot to mention:
> I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
> to pass options to the checker function:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> I think this should be there so that the API does not have to be
> changed in the future.
>

there is just one question - how propagate options to check functions

I am thinking about third parameter - probably text array

??
Regards

Pavel

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-12-12 15:58:52 Re: Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?
Previous Message Julien Tachoires 2011-12-12 15:54:54 Re: patch : Allow toast tables to be moved to a different tablespace