2011/11/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>: > > 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)
this syntax is relative consistent with EXPLAIN, is it ok for all? Pavel > > -- > 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
