Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3

2013/12/9 Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>

> On 12/8/13 11:24 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> > #option check_on_first_start
>> > #option check_on_create
>> > #option check_newer
>>
>> what exactly check_newer means, does it mean whenever a function is
>> replaced (changed)?
>>
>>
>> no, it means, so request for check will be ignored ever - some functions
>> cannot be deeply checked due using dynamic SQL or dynamic created data
>> types - temporary tables created in functions.
>>
>
> So presumably it would be check_never, not check_newer... :) BTW, it's not
> terribly hard to work around the temp table issue; you just need to create
> the expected table in the session when you create the function. But even in
> this case, I think it would still be good to check what we can, like at
> least basic plpgsql syntax.
>

I sorry.

You cannot to create temporary table - this check should not have any side
effect - and creating temporary table can run some event trigger.

But there should be some hints for check like annotations or some similar.
Or you can minimize a area where check will be disabled.

>
> Do we really need first_start? ISTM that if you're dependent on run state
> then you're basically out of luck.
>

I afraid so checking on creation time is not enough for plpgsql.

and I have a very good experience with check on start from plpgsql_lint
usage when I wrote a regression tests.

A "first start" doesn't create dependency on state - but just more
preciously define a time, when checking will be done. Probably a option
check_create_and_start can be useful.

Regards

Pavel

> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
> 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
>