From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
Date: | 2003-10-04 23:01:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0310050057150.2745-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> > If it's only honored by SQL functions, then it should probably be called
> > check_sql_function_bodies.
>
> I thought about that while I was making the patch, but decided that it
> would be a very un-forward-looking name. Someday we will probably have
> syntax-checking validators for plpgsql, etc.
The point of this feature is to avoid failures because of forward
references in SQL code. A syntax-checking validator in anything but
possibly plpgsql will not even look at SQL code, so a validator for
a different language will only gain pain and confusion by respecting this
parameter. Perhaps it needs to different name altogether, along the lines
of "do not check SQL code in functions".
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-10-04 23:04:18 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml rc/interf ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQL | 2003-10-04 22:50:20 | pgsql-server/src/backend/po es.po |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-10-04 23:15:15 | Re: [HACKERS] initdb |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-10-04 22:00:13 | Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd |