Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011: > A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check, > it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to > control which checks are applied. And I see no provision for that here. > This is not something we can add later, at least not without breaking > the API for the check function --- and if we're willing to break API, > why not just add some more parameters to the validator and avoid having > a second function?
How about CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
