| From: | "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures |
| Date: | 2021-04-10 07:56:36 |
| Message-ID: | GV0P278MB048338169F3080AE6686AFF6D2729@GV0P278MB0483.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
>> out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
>> "check_function_bodies" really means in that setting.
>That parameter is also set explicitly in pg_dump output, so we
>can't rename it without breaking existing dump files.
>Admittedly, guc.c does have provisions for substituting new names
>if we rename some parameter. But I'm not in a hurry to create
>more instances of that behavior; the potential for confusion
>seems to outweigh any benefit.
>+1 for updating the description though. We could s/function/routine/
>where space is tight.
Thanks for your inputs. Attached a proposal which updates the description.
Regards
Daniel
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| guc.c.check_function_bodies-desc-fix.patch | text/x-patch | 520 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-04-10 11:42:57 | Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-10 07:43:37 | Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance? |