Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBvi_qrsAbjzoageOg2pSbBGn2=iemuqpbN_ndvaTCVnQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/13 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>: > Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> One thing I forgot to mention: >>> I thought there was a consensus to add a WITH() or OPTIONS() clause >>> to pass options to the checker function: >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12568.1322669638@sss.pgh.pa.us >>> >>> I think this should be there so that the API does not have to be >>> changed in the future. >>> > >> there is just one question - how propagate options to check functions >> >> I am thinking about third parameter - probably text array > > 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 Regards Pavel > I don't know what is most natural or convenient. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: