| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2012-03-09 00:19:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZeW4W1i3_U+dEBz4YR3E1YrtXBN2o1qzi4X3xZLiVf0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> * It's not terribly important to me to be able to run checkers
> separately. If I wanted to do that, I would just disable or
> remove the checker.
Does this requirement mean that you want to essentially associate a
set of checkers with each language and then, when asked to check a
function, run all of them serially in an undefined order?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-03-09 00:28:08 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-03-08 22:24:22 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |