Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1331324143.23681.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On tor, 2012-03-08 at 19:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > * It's not terribly important to me to be able to run checkers > > separately. If I wanted to do that, I would just disable or > > remove the checker. > > Does this requirement mean that you want to essentially associate a > set of checkers with each language and then, when asked to check a > function, run all of them serially in an undefined order? Well, the more I think about it and look at this patch, the more I think that this would be complete overkill and possibly quite useless for my purposes. I can implement the entire essence of this framework (except the plpgsql_checker itself, which is clearly useful) in 10 lines, namely: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pep8(src text) RETURNS text IMMUTABLE LANGUAGE plsh AS $$ #!/bin/bash pep8 --ignore=W391 <(echo "$1") 2>&1 | sed -r 's/^[^:]*://' $$; SELECT proname, pep8(prosrc) FROM pg_proc WHERE prolang = ANY (SELECT oid FROM pg_language WHERE lanname LIKE '%python%')ORDER BY 1; I don't know what more one would need.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: