Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1330447071-sup-1198@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Petr Jelínek <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I have a few comments about this patch: I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses SPI instead of just a FunctionCallN to call the checker function. I think this should be easily avoidable. Second, I see that functioncmds.c gets a lot into trigger internals just to be able to figure out the function starting from a trigger name. I think it'd be saner to have a new function in trigger.c that returns the required function OID. I think CheckFunction would be clearer if the code to check multiple objects is split out into a separate subroutine. After CheckFunction there is a leftover function comment without any following function. There are other spurious hunks that add or remove single lines too (once in an otherwise untouched file). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: