Re: Last gasp

2012/4/5 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>:
> On 05.04.2012 21:00, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> Heikki recently produced a revision of the check function patch, but
>> I'm not sure whether he's planning to commit that or whether it's a
>> demonstration of a broader rework he wants Pavel (or someone else) to
>> do.  At any rate, I think it's up to him whether or not to commit
>> that.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess it's up to me, now that I've touched that code. I don't feel
> ready to commit it yet. It needs some more cleanup, which I could do, but
> frankly even with the refactoring I did I'm still not totally happy with the
> way it works. I feel that there ought to be a less duplicative approach, but
> I don't have any more concrete proposals. Unless someone more motivated
> picks up the patch now, I think it needs to be pushed to 9.3.

I played with more general plpgpsm walker, but I am sure, so it is
wrong way - request for checking and dumping, and releasing plans are
too different. So there are not too much possibilities :(

The main issue is in design of exec nodes. I have no idea how to move
checking to there without increasing complexity in pl_exec.c. Some are
relative simply, but "case", "if", "block" are not.

Other idea is moving plpgsql_check_function to contrib.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
>  Heikki Linnakangas
>  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

t