Hello Dne 28. února 2012 17:48 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> napsal(a): > > > I have a few comments about this patch: > > I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses > SPI instead of just a FunctionCallN to call the checker function. I > think this should be easily avoidable. >
It is not possible - or it has not simple solution (I don't how to do it). PLpgSQL_checker is SRF function. SPI is used for processing returned resultset. I looked to pg source code, and I didn't find any other pattern than using SPI for SRF function call. It is probably possible, but it means some code duplication too. I invite any ideas. > Second, I see that functioncmds.c gets a lot into trigger internals just > to be able to figure out the function starting from a trigger name. I > think it'd be saner to have a new function in trigger.c that returns the > required function OID. done > > I think CheckFunction would be clearer if the code to check multiple > objects is split out into a separate subroutine. done > > After CheckFunction there is a leftover function comment without any > following function. There are other spurious hunks that add or remove > single lines too (once in an otherwise untouched file). fixed > I refreshed patch for current git repository. Regards Pavel > -- > Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
check_function-2012-02-28-2.diff.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
