Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCn50M8FSZwi3JuyB737U0ZcpUw+i0kimQ0k6STcr3kYQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2012/3/5 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>> I confess to some bafflement about why we need dedicated syntax for >>> this, or even any kind of core support at all. What would be wrong >>> with defining a function that takes regprocedure as an argument and >>> does whatever? Sure, it's nicer syntax, but we've repeatedly rejected >>> patches that only provided nicer syntax on the grounds that syntax is >>> not free, and therefore syntax alone is not a reason to change the >>> core grammar. What makes this case different? >> >> There's definitely something to be said for that, since it entirely >> eliminates the problem of providing wildcards and control over which >> function(s) to check --- the user could write a SELECT from pg_proc >> that slices things however he wants. >> The trigger case would presumably take arguments matching pg_trigger's >> primary key, viz check_trigger(trig_rel regclass, trigger_name name). > > Yes... > >> But as for needing "core support", we do need to extend the API for PL >> validators, so it's not like this could be done as an external project. > > Well, the plpgsql extension could install a function > pg_check_plpgsql_function() that only works on PL/pgsql functions, and > other procedural languages could do the same at their option. I think > we only need to extend the API if we want to provide a dispatch > function so that you can say "check this function, whatever language > it's written in" and have the right checker get called. But since > we've already talked about the possibility of having more than one > checker per language doing different kinds of checks, I'm not even > sure that "the checker" for a language is a concept that we want to > invent. There is not multiple PL checker function - or I don't know about it. Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: