2012/4/5 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com>: > On 05.04.2012 21:00, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Heikki recently produced a revision of the check function patch, but >> I'm not sure whether he's planning to commit that or whether it's a >> demonstration of a broader rework he wants Pavel (or someone else) to >> do. At any rate, I think it's up to him whether or not to commit >> that. > > > Yeah, I guess it's up to me, now that I've touched that code. I don't feel > ready to commit it yet. It needs some more cleanup, which I could do, but > frankly even with the refactoring I did I'm still not totally happy with the > way it works. I feel that there ought to be a less duplicative approach, but > I don't have any more concrete proposals. Unless someone more motivated > picks up the patch now, I think it needs to be pushed to 9.3.
I played with more general plpgpsm walker, but I am sure, so it is wrong way - request for checking and dumping, and releasing plans are too different. So there are not too much possibilities :( The main issue is in design of exec nodes. I have no idea how to move checking to there without increasing complexity in pl_exec.c. Some are relative simply, but "case", "if", "block" are not. Other idea is moving plpgsql_check_function to contrib. Regards Pavel > > -- > Heikki Linnakangas > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com t -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
