| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule *EXTERN*" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-12-13 10:01:27 |
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2073C85B9@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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"?
I don't know what is most natural or convenient.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lionel Elie Mamane | 2011-12-13 10:15:07 | LibreOffice driver 1: Building libpq with Mozilla LDAP instead of OpenLDAP |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-12-13 09:57:49 | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |