Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

2012/3/7 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> More importantly, I do not agree with requiring the user to specify the
>>>> language name --- that is, it should be check_function(procoid) and have
>>>> that look up a language-specific checker.  Otherwise, scenarios like
>>>> "check all my functions regardless of language" are too painful.
>>>> There is value-added in providing that much infrastructure.
>>
>>> I might agree with you if we had more than one checker function, but
>>> right now we are proposing to implement this for PL/pgsql and only
>>> PL/pgsql.  It seems to me that we can add that when and if a second
>>> checker function shows up, if it still seems like a good idea.
>>
>> That argument is just silly.  The only reason there's only one checker
>> function is that that's all Pavel has bothered to write yet, and all
>> that he's likely to write since (AFAICT) he doesn't care about the other
>> PLs.  But other people do.  There is certainly value in being able to do
>> checking of other languages, and if we don't set this up properly now,
>> we're going to have problems with having to change the user-visible API
>> later.
>
> If we publish plpgsql_check(regproc) now and a year from now we
> publish anypl_check(regproc), the former will still work.  There's no
> need for an API break there.
>
>> I said from the beginning that I thought the most important part of this
>> patch was getting the API for the language-specific validator functions
>> right, and I remain of that opinion.  If we're going to blow that off
>> then we should forget the patch entirely until we have time to do it
>> right.
>
> Well, I guess I'm still of the opinion that the real question is
> whether the particular lint checks that Pavel's implemented are good
> and useful things.  Has anyone spent any time looking at *that*?  I'm
> not going to stand here and hold my breath over the interface, but it
> seems to me that if we don't know that we've got a worthwhile set of
> underlying functionality, sweating the interface too much is putting
> the cart before the horse.

the core is based over plpgsql_lint - and this is used in some
companies about year

Pavel

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company