From: | chris travers <chris(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode |
Date: | 2013-09-14 04:53:52 |
Message-ID: | 200006361.174862.1379134432266.open-xchange@email.1and1.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
A few thoughts about this.
> On 14 September 2013 at 05:28 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> After my previous suggestion for adding a STRICT keyword got shot
> down[1], I've been thinking about an idea Andrew Gierth tossed out:
> adding a new "strict mode" into PL/PgSQL. In this mode, any query which
> processes more than one row will raise an exception. This is a bit
> similar to specifying INTO STRICT .. for every statement, except
> processing no rows does not trigger the exception. The need for this
> mode comes from a few observations I make almost every day:
> 1) The majority of statements only deal with exactly 0 or 1 rows.
> 2) Checking row_count for a statement is ugly and cumbersome, so
> often it just isn't checked. I often use RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK
> for DML, but that a) requires an extra variable, and b) isn't possible
> if 0 rows affected is not an error in the application logic.
> 3) SELECT .. INTO only fetches one row and ignores the rest. Even
> row_count is always set to 0 or 1, so there's no way to fetch a value
> *and* to check that there would not have been more rows. This creates
> bugs which make your queries return wrong results and which could go
> undetected for a long time.
I am going to suggest that STRICT is semantically pretty far from what is meant
here in common speech. I think STRICT here would be confusing. This would be
really pretty severe for people coming from Perl or MySQL backgrounds.
May I suggest SINGLE as a key word instead? It might be worth having attached
to a INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE statements.
I am thinking something like:
DELETE SINGLE FROM foo WHERE f1 < 1000;
would be more clearer. Similarly one could have:
INSERT SINGLE INTO foo SELECT * from foo2;
and
UPDATE SINGLE foo
You could even use SELECT SINGLE but not sure where the use case is there where
unique indexes are not sufficient.
>
> Attached is a proof-of-concept patch (no docs, probably some actual code
> problems too) to implement this as a compile option:
>
> =# create or replace function footest() returns void as $$
> $# #strict_mode strict
> $# begin
> $# -- not allowed to delete more than one row
> $# delete from foo where f1 < 100;
> $# end$$ language plpgsql;
> CREATE FUNCTION
> =# select footest();
> ERROR: query processed more than one row
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function footest() line 5 at SQL statement
>
> Now while I think this is a step into the right direction, I do have a
> couple of problems with this patch:
> 1) I'm not sure what would be the correct behaviour with EXECUTE.
> I'm tempted to just leave EXECUTE alone, as it has slightly different
> rules anyway.
> 2) If you're running in strict mode and you want to
> insert/update/delete more than one row, things get a bit uglier; a wCTE
> would work for some cases. If strict mode doesn't affect EXECUTE (see
> point 1 above), that could work too. Or maybe there could be a new
> command which runs a query, discards the results and ignores the number
> of rows processed.
Yeah, I am worried about this one. I am concerned that if you can't disable on
a statement by statement basis, then you have a problem where you end up
removing the mode from the function and then it becomes a lot harder for
everyone maintaining the function to have a clear picture of what is going on.
I am further worried that hacked ugly code ways around it will introduce plenty
of other maintenance pain points that will be worse than what you are solving.
>
> I'll be adding this to the open commitfest in hopes of getting some
> feedback on this idea (I'm prepared to hear a lot of "you're crazy!"),
> but feel free to comment away any time you please.
Well, I don't know if my feedback above is helpful, but there it is ;-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Marko Tiikkaja
>
> [1]: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/510BF731.5020802@gmx.net
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
http://www.2ndquadrant.com
PostgreSQL Services, Training, and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-09-14 06:29:05 | Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-09-14 04:45:05 | Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode |