Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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