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