Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRAc5fqZ+Ww5QBG9+ZQCP5dY+BTd4aztd4v+Cyn5rVqsjg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello 2012/2/28 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>: > > > 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. I replaced elog by ereport for all not internal errors > > Does the patched pg_dump work with older servers? > it should to do > 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. please, fix it like you wish Regards Pavel > > -- > Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: