Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2012-03-07 17:31:37
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZAgxOokSUpStxHK2a-1ESs3+sGPRuxUyvCG9EYkxs+=g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we need both
>> plpgsql_check_function(procoid) and plpgsql_check_trigger(tgoid), no
>> problem.
>
> FWIW, I would suggest check_trigger(regclass, name) not tgoid, because
> we do not have a regtrigger convenience type (and I don't think it's
> worth adding one).

I'm OK with either one.

> More importantly, I do not agree with requiring the user to specify the
> language name --- that is, it should be check_function(procoid) and have
> that look up a language-specific checker.  Otherwise, scenarios like
> "check all my functions regardless of language" are too painful.
> There is value-added in providing that much infrastructure.

I might agree with you if we had more than one checker function, but
right now we are proposing to implement this for PL/pgsql and only
PL/pgsql. It seems to me that we can add that when and if a second
checker function shows up, if it still seems like a good idea.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-03-07 17:33:06 Re: a slightly stale comment
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-03-07 17:28:37 Re: Checksums, state of play