| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: schema agnostic functions in language sql |
| Date: | 2020-05-16 00:03:56 |
| Message-ID: | 19492.1589587436@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I cannot create a plain sql function unless the search_path covers any
> table mentioned. Not the case when using plpgsql - no path needed.
Oh, one of the things that's quite a lot different is the checking
applied at function creation time ;-).
For a SQL function, by default we'll try to parse and analyze the body, so
any unknown tables will draw an error. plpgsql doesn't go further than a
very crude syntax check.
If you don't like that, you can set check_function_bodies = off while
creating your SQL functions. But in any case, it's only related to what
happens at execution if the search path is the same.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Suhail Bamzena | 2020-05-16 00:20:00 | Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-05-16 00:02:38 | Re: schema agnostic functions in language sql |