Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22600.1322586926@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > 2011/11/29 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>: >> There are a lot of small changes to pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, are they all >> necessary? For example, why was copy_plpgsql_datum renamed to >> plpgsql_copy_datum? > yes, it's necessary - a implementation is in new file and there is > necessary call a functions from pg_compile and pg_exec files - > checking is between compilation and execution - so some functions > should not be static now. All plpgsql public functions should start > with plpgsql_ prefix. It is reason for renaming. I don't think renaming is necessary. plpgsql is a standalone shared library and so its symbols don't matter to anybody but itself. Possibly a larger question, though, is whether you really need a new source file. If that results in having to export functions that otherwise could stay static, maybe it's not the best choice. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: