Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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