Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRAWj0rc=t7i3RxV3ipNc9b1kL+fvbdf9EJ32-Hmyt5qFA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/13 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >> 2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>: >>> Either that, or couldn't you pass an option List as data type "internal"? > >> this is question - internal is most simply solution, but then we >> cannot to call check function directly > > Yeah, one of the proposals for allowing people to specify complicated > conditions about what to check was to tell them to do > select checker(oid) from pg_proc where any-random-condition; > If the checker isn't user-callable then we lose that escape hatch, and > the only selection conditions that will ever be possible are the ones > we take the trouble to shoehorn into the CHECK FUNCTION statement. > Doesn't seem like a good thing to me. yes, it is reason why I thinking just about string array. I have not idea about other PL, but options for plpgsql can be one word and checker function can simply parse two or more words options. Now I would to implement flags "quite" - ignore NOTIFY messages and "fatal_errors" to stop on first error. Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: