From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2012-03-10 12:35:12 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCKggd1OsnRHDv5T+UtyFa-_SNMPYJiWzt6rbJibW9pYw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2012/3/10 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> But then I would have to map all language-specific error reports to some
>> SQL error scheme, which is not only cumbersome but pretty useless. For
>> example, a Python programmer will be familiar with the typical output
>> that pylint produces and how to fix it. If we hide that output behind
>> the layer of SQL-ness, that won't make things easier to anyone.
>
> Yeah, this is a good point. I'm willing to concede that we are not
> close to having a uniform API that could be used for checker functions,
> so maybe what we should do for now is just invent
> plpgsql_check_function(regprocedure). I'd still like to see the
> question revisited sometime in the future, but it would be appropriate
> to have a few working examples of popular checker functions for
> different languages before we try to invent a common API.
>
here is draft
I removed all generic structures.
Regards
Pavel
> regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
plpgsql_check_function.diff.gz | application/x-gzip | 17.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-10 12:56:20 | Re: lateral function as a subquery - WIP patch |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-10 12:11:52 | Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database |