2012/3/7 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> More importantly, I do not agree with requiring the user to specify the >>> language name --- that is, it should be check_function(procoid) and have >>> that look up a language-specific checker. Otherwise, scenarios like >>> "check all my functions regardless of language" are too painful. >>> There is value-added in providing that much infrastructure. > >> I might agree with you if we had more than one checker function, but >> right now we are proposing to implement this for PL/pgsql and only >> PL/pgsql. It seems to me that we can add that when and if a second >> checker function shows up, if it still seems like a good idea. > > That argument is just silly. The only reason there's only one checker > function is that that's all Pavel has bothered to write yet, and all > that he's likely to write since (AFAICT) he doesn't care about the other > PLs. But other people do. There is certainly value in being able to do > checking of other languages, and if we don't set this up properly now, > we're going to have problems with having to change the user-visible API > later. > > I said from the beginning that I thought the most important part of this > patch was getting the API for the language-specific validator functions > right, and I remain of that opinion. If we're going to blow that off > then we should forget the patch entirely until we have time to do it > right. >
I believe so with some minimal support for other languages - tj check_function, there will be other checker functions early. Preparing plpgsql_check_function instead check_function save 10 lines of code, and we will close door to other. I am working on some minimalistic 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
