Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1330461568-sup-4846@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if it's really worthwhile having a bunch of separate productions for this; how about we just use the existing explain_option_list instead and get rid of those extra productions? elog() is used in many user-facing messages (errors and notices). Full ereport() calls should be used there, so that messages are marked for translations and so on. Does the patched pg_dump work with older servers? I don't like CheckFunction being declared in defrem.h. It seems completely out of place there. I don't see any better place though, so I'm thinking maybe we should have a new header file for it (say commands/functions.h; but we already have executor/functions.h so perhaps it's better to find another name). This addition means that there's a distressingly large number of .c files that are now getting dest.h, which was previously pretty confined. -- 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: