2012/3/10 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> But then I would have to map all language-specific error reports to some >> SQL error scheme, which is not only cumbersome but pretty useless. For >> example, a Python programmer will be familiar with the typical output >> that pylint produces and how to fix it. If we hide that output behind >> the layer of SQL-ness, that won't make things easier to anyone. > > Yeah, this is a good point. I'm willing to concede that we are not > close to having a uniform API that could be used for checker functions, > so maybe what we should do for now is just invent > plpgsql_check_function(regprocedure). I'd still like to see the > question revisited sometime in the future, but it would be appropriate > to have a few working examples of popular checker functions for > different languages before we try to invent a common API.
ok, I'll prepare patch Pavel > > regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
