On 02/07/22 10:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 05.02.22 00:55, Chapman Flack wrote: >> I'm thinking plhandler.sgml is the only place that really needs to be >> ... >> worth mentioning there, though, that it isn't possible to develop >> transforms for an arbitrary PL unless that PL applies transforms.) > > makes sense > >> (argument_type [, ...]) even though check_transform_function will reject >> any argument list of length other than 1 or with type other than internal. > > That could be corrected.
I'll work on some doc patches. >> As long as a PL handler has the sole responsibility for invoking >> its transforms, I wonder if it would make sense to allow a PL to >> define what its transforms should look like, maybe replacing >> check_transform_function with a transform_validator for the PL. > > Maybe. This kind of thing would mostly be driven what a PL wants in actual > practice, and then how that could be generalized to many/all PLs. It has since occurred to me that another benefit of having a transform_validator per PL would be immediate error reporting if someone, for whatever reason, tries out CREATE TRANSFORM for a PL that doesn't grok transforms. Regards, -Chap
