From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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: | 2012-03-03 06:03:25 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAm5W=0X6ApD6_QDceHwS9A46MJtz6ey6tGmdeQWUjbUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/3/3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
>
>> > Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
>> > directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
>> > few SPI lines. I don't understand why you don't like SPI.
>
> I don't dislike SPI in general. I just dislike using it internally in
> the backend. Other than RI, it's not used anywhere.
>
>> > It is used more times in code for similar purpose.
>>
>> this disallow direct PL check function call - so any more complex
>> situation cannot be solved by SQL, but must be solved by PL/pgSQL with
>> dynamic SQL
>
> Nonsense. Where did you get this idea? I did not touch the plpgsql
> code at all, it'd still work exactly as in your original patch.
ok
I am sorry
Pavel
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-03 12:53:03 | Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-03 06:01:45 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |