Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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: 2012-03-05 18:11:41
Message-ID: 1330970654-sup-8562@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun mar 05 13:02:50 -0300 2012:
> small fix of CheckFunctionById function
>
> Regards
>
> p.s. Alvaro, please, send your patch and I'll merge it

Here it is, with your changes already merged. I also added back the
new reference doc files which were dropped after the 2012-01-01 version.
Note I haven't touched or read the plpgsql checker code at all (only
some automatic indentation changes IIRC). I haven't verified the
regression tests either.

FWIW I'm not going to participate in the other thread; neither I am
going to work any more on this patch until the other thread sees some
reasonable conclusion.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Attachment Content-Type Size
check_function-2012-03-05-1.patch.gz application/x-gzip 32.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-03-05 18:14:02 Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2012-03-05 18:02:45 Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?