From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Date: | 2011-12-13 12:59:51 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBvi_qrsAbjzoageOg2pSbBGn2=iemuqpbN_ndvaTCVnQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> One thing I forgot to mention:
>>> I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause
>>> to pass options to the checker function:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>>
>>> I think this should be there so that the API does not have to be
>>> changed in the future.
>>>
>
>> there is just one question - how propagate options to check functions
>>
>> I am thinking about third parameter - probably text array
>
> Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type "internal"?
>
this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we
cannot to call check function directly
Regards
Pavel
> I don't know what is most natural or convenient.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2011-12-13 13:00:15 | Re: WIP: Collecting statistics on CSV file data |
Previous Message | Alex Goncharov | 2011-12-13 12:55:45 | libpq: PQcmdStatus, PQcmdTuples signatures can be painlessly improved |