From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule *EXTERN*" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Date: | 2012-01-04 14:27:08 |
Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C20752B214@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
>
> I changed implementation of interface:
>
> * checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it
> necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it
> allow to use better structured data then ExceptionData
[...]
> * result of CHECK FUNCTION is simple table (like EXPLAIN - based on
> Tom proposition)
I don't have the time for a complete review, but I tried the patch
and found:
It is in context diff and applies to current master (there is fuzz 1
in one hunk). It contains documentation and regression tests.
Compiles without warnings and passes regression tests.
The two or three CHECK FUNCTIONs I ran worked ok.
The documentation (that I wrote) will need to get updated: currently
it states in two places that the checker function should throw a
warning if it encounters a problem.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2012-01-04 14:28:59 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-04 13:41:58 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |