check function patch

Hi guys,

sorry, I'm stuck in an unfamiliar webmail.

I checked the patch Petr just posted.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg00482.php

I have two comments.  First, I notice that the documentation changes
has two places that describe the columns that a function checker
returns -- one in the "plhandler" page, another in the create language
page.  I think it should exist only on one of those, probably the
create language one; and the plhandler page should just say "the
checker should comply with the specification at ". Or something like
that.   Also, the fact that the tuple description is prose makes it
hard to read; I think it should be a table -- three columns: name,
type, description.

My second comment is that the checker tuple descriptor seems to have
changed in the code.  In the patch I posted,
the FunctionCheckerDesc() function was not static; in this patch it
has been made static.  But what I intended was that the other places
that need a descriptor for anything would use this function to get
one, instead of building them by hand.  There are two such places
currently, one in CreateProceduralLanguage. I think this should be
simply walking the tupdesc->attrs array to create the arrays it needs
for the ProcedureCreate call -- shoud be a rather easy change.  The
other place is plpgsql's report_error(). Honestly I don't like this
function at all due to the way it's assuming what the tupledesc looks
like.  I'm not sure how to improve it, however, but it seems wrong to
me.  One reason to do this this way (i.e. centralize knowledge of
what the tupdesc looks like) is that otherwise they get out of sync --
I notice that CreateProcedureLanguage now knows that there are 15
columns while the other places believe there are only 11. 

Hello

there are other version related to your last comments. I removed magic
constants.

This is not merged with Peter's changes. I'll do it tomorrow. Probably
there will be some bigger changes in header files, but this can be
next step.

Regards

Pavel

2012/3/8 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>:
> Hi guys,
>
> sorry, I'm stuck in an unfamiliar webmail.
>
> I checked the patch Petr just posted.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg00482.php
>
> I have two comments.  First, I notice that the documentation changes has two
> places that describe the columns that a function checker returns -- one in
> the "plhandler" page, another in the create language page.  I think it
> should exist only on one of those, probably the create language one; and the
> plhandler page should just say "the checker should comply with the
> specification at <create language>". Or something like that.   Also, the
> fact that the tuple description is prose makes it hard to read; I think it
> should be a table -- three columns: name, type, description.
>
> My second comment is that the checker tuple descriptor seems to have changed
> in the code.  In the patch I posted, the FunctionCheckerDesc() function was
> not static; in this patch it has been made static.  But what I intended was
> that the other places that need a descriptor for anything would use this
> function to get one, instead of building them by hand.  There are two such
> places currently, one in CreateProceduralLanguage. I think this should be
> simply walking the tupdesc->attrs array to create the arrays it needs for
> the ProcedureCreate call -- shoud be a rather easy change.  The other place
> is plpgsql's report_error(). Honestly I don't like this function at all due
> to the way it's assuming what the tupledesc looks like.  I'm not sure how to
> improve it, however, but it seems wrong to me.

One reason to do this this
> way (i.e. centralize knowledge of what the tupdesc looks like) is that
> otherwise they get out of sync -- I notice that CreateProcedureLanguage now
> knows that there are 15 columns while the other places believe there are
> only 11.
>
>

Hello Alvaro

here is new version - merged Peter's doc changes. I created a new
header "functioncmds.h". This file contains lines related to checker
only. I didn't want to unclean this patch by header files
reorganization.

Regards

Pavel

2012/3/8 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Hello
>
> there are other version related to your last comments. I removed magic
> constants.
>
> This is not merged with Peter's changes. I'll do it tomorrow. Probably
> there will be some bigger changes in header files, but this can be
> next step.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
> 2012/3/8 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> sorry, I'm stuck in an unfamiliar webmail.
>>
>> I checked the patch Petr just posted.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg00482.php
>>
>> I have two comments.  First, I notice that the documentation changes has two
>> places that describe the columns that a function checker returns -- one in
>> the "plhandler" page, another in the create language page.  I think it
>> should exist only on one of those, probably the create language one; and the
>> plhandler page should just say "the checker should comply with the
>> specification at <create language>". Or something like that.   Also, the
>> fact that the tuple description is prose makes it hard to read; I think it
>> should be a table -- three columns: name, type, description.
>>
>> My second comment is that the checker tuple descriptor seems to have changed
>> in the code.  In the patch I posted, the FunctionCheckerDesc() function was
>> not static; in this patch it has been made static.  But what I intended was
>> that the other places that need a descriptor for anything would use this
>> function to get one, instead of building them by hand.  There are two such
>> places currently, one in CreateProceduralLanguage. I think this should be
>> simply walking the tupdesc->attrs array to create the arrays it needs for
>> the ProcedureCreate call -- shoud be a rather easy change.  The other place
>> is plpgsql's report_error(). Honestly I don't like this function at all due
>> to the way it's assuming what the tupledesc looks like.  I'm not sure how to
>> improve it, however, but it seems wrong to me.
>
> One reason to do this this
>> way (i.e. centralize knowledge of what the tupdesc looks like) is that
>> otherwise they get out of sync -- I notice that CreateProcedureLanguage now
>> knows that there are 15 columns while the other places believe there are
>> only 11.
>>
>>