Re: SQL-standard function body - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: SQL-standard function body
Date
Msg-id 20200701154225.GD5186@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL-standard function body  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SQL-standard function body
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul  1, 2020 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Zidenberg, Tsahi"
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] audo-detect and use -moutline-atomics compilation flag for aarch64
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode