Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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