2012/3/7 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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