From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ToDo: plpgsql plugin for query and expression verification |
Date: | 2010-02-16 15:55:38 |
Message-ID: | e08cc0401002160755i219127berbdd5cb66033a1d34@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/2/16 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/2/16 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> 2010/2/16 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> I think, so these problem have to be identified in compile stage - but
>>> it can be too strict for all (and can slow down production) - it is
>>> reason for plugin.
>>>
>>> What do you think about this idea?
>>
>> How do you identify them? Running function body cannot be applied if
>> the function is volatile. Also, I don't see how do you choose function
>> argument values even in immutable cases.
>
> It is issue only for dynamic sql and polymorphic functions. But for
> all others we can do full check in validation stage. I thinking about
> similar tool to lint - just for plpgsql function. It cannot detect all
> bugs, but it can diagnose 99% of possible issues.
>
> I don't would to execute function - it is useless because you need
> good UI for execution all path. My idea is different. gram.y has
> check_sql_expr rutine. This is used for parser checking every static
> SQL fragment in plpgsql function. With some hook we can do full plan
> generation instead.
Hmm, type mismatching can be checked by your suggestion, but that's
it. The true answer to your original post might be "write unit test",
isn't it?
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-16 16:00:37 | Re: bug? autovacuum is not launched even if autovacuum_freeze_max_age is reached |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-02-16 15:55:12 | Re: OpenVMS? |