| From: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 13:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | 54086B51.3040300@wi3ck.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/04/2014 09:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2014-09-04 15:24 GMT+02:00 Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info
>
> I think I like the COMMAND CONSTRAINT the best so far.
>
>
> I not, because when it will not be part of SQL, than parser in plpgsql
> will be more complex. You have to inject SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE
Making the COMMAND CONSTRAINT part of the core SQL parser was how I
understood Hannu's idea. It would be horrible to tuck that feature away
inside of a PL, rather than making it available to all PLs as well as
applications, that use SQL directly (I think there still are two or
three applications that do).
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-09-04 13:43:34 | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 13:37:12 | Re: Escaping from blocked send() reprised. |