Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCZXVexkRMxzn0hPwBS6hCMY_f79U1+xRLeymMbqUaO3w@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 |
hello 2011/12/12 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>: > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> there is merged patch > > Works fine, except that there are still missing const qualifiers > in copyfuncs.c and equalfuncs.c that lead to compiler warnings. > > 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 ?? Regards Pavel > Yours, > Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: