2012/3/9 Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>: > On tor, 2012-03-08 at 23:15 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> But you propose some little bit different than is current plpgsql >> checker and current design. > > Is it? Why? It looks like exactly the same thing, except that the > interfaces you propose are tightly geared toward checking SQL-like > languages, which looks like a mistake to me.
no, you can check any PL language - and output result is based on SQL Errors, so it should be enough for all PL too. > >> It's not bad, but it is some different and it is not useful for >> plpgsql - external stored procedures are different, than SQL >> procedures and probably you will check different issues. >> >> I don't think so multiple checkers and external checkers are necessary >> - if some can living outside, then it should to live outside. Internal >> checker can be one for PL language. It is parametrized - so you can >> control goals of checking. > > What would be the qualifications for being an internal or an external > checker? Why couldn't your plpgsql checker be an external checker? plpgsql checker cannot be external checker, because it reuse 70% of plpgsql environment, - parser, runtime, ... so creating a external checker is equal to creating a second plpgsql environment - maybe reduced, but you have to duplicate parser, sql integration, ... Regards Pavel > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
