2012/3/9 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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
>
>