Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: Robert Haas *EXTERN* <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Date: 2012-03-08 21:56:20
Message-ID: 1331243780.1197.24.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tor, 2012-03-08 at 10:49 +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Actually, I did when I reviewed the patch the first time round.
> I think that the checks implemented are clearly good and useful,
> since any problem reported will lead to an error at runtime if
> a certain code path in the function is taken.

Shouldn't the validator just reject the function in those cases?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-03-08 21:59:59 Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-03-08 21:54:33 Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?