On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:44 PM Mark Wong <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:36:44PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > > On 03/02/22 15:12, Mark Wong wrote: > > > > > I've attached v2, which reduces the output: > > > > > > * Removing the notices for the text body, and the "compile" message. > > > * Replaced the notice for "compile" message with a comment as a > > > placeholder for where a compiling code or checking a cache may go. > > > * Reducing the number of rows inserted into the table, thus reducing > > > the number of notice messages about which code path is taken. > > > > I think the simplifying assumption of a simple interpreted language allows > > a lot more of this code to go away. I mean more or less that whole first > > PG_TRY...PG_END_TRY block, which could be replaced with a comment saying > > something like > > > > The source text may be augmented here, such as by wrapping it as the > > body of a function in the target language, prefixing a parameter list > > with names like TD_name, TD_relid, TD_table_name, TD_table_schema, > > TD_event, TD_when, TD_level, TD_NEW, TD_OLD, and args, using whatever > > types in the target language are convenient. The augmented text can be > > cached in a longer-lived memory context, or, if the target language uses > > a compilation step, that can be done here, caching the result of the > > compilation. > > > > That would leave only the later PG_TRY block where the function gets > > "executed". That could stay largely as is, but should probably also have > > a comment within it, something like > > > > Here the function (the possibly-augmented source text, or the result > > of compilation if the target language uses such a step) should be > > executed, after binding these values from the TriggerData struct to > > the expected parameters. > > > > That should make the example shorter and clearer, and preserve the output > > tested by the regression test. Trying to show much more than that involves > > assumptions about what the PL's target language syntax looks like, how its > > execution engine works and parameters are bound, and so on, and that is > > likely to just be distracting, IMV. > > I think I've applied all of these suggestions and attached a new patch. >
Cool... I also have a look into the code. To me everything is also ok!!! Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello