From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL-standard function body |
Date: | 2020-07-01 15:42:25 |
Message-ID: | 20200701154225.GD5186@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > In my experience, there's certainly demand for some kind of mode where
> > plpgsql functions get checked at function definition time, rather than
> > at execution time.
>
> Yeah, absolutely agreed. But I'm afraid this proposal takes us too
> far in the other direction: with this, you *must* have a 100% parseable
> and semantically valid function body, every time all the time.
>
> So far as plpgsql is concerned, I could see extending the validator
> to run parse analysis (not just raw parsing) on all SQL statements in
> the body. This wouldn't happen of course with check_function_bodies off,
> so it wouldn't affect dump/reload. But likely there would still be
> demand for more fine-grained control over it ... or maybe it could
> stop doing analysis as soon as it finds a DDL command?
Is the SQL-standard function body verified as preventing function
inlining? That seems to be a major downside.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-07-01 15:48:02 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
Previous Message | Zidenberg, Tsahi | 2020-07-01 15:40:38 | [PATCH] audo-detect and use -moutline-atomics compilation flag for aarch64 |