On 5/15/20 4:58 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
> On 5/15/20 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Yes, SQL and pl/pgsql have very different behaviors when it comes to
>>> compilation and execution. In particular SQL performs parsing earlier
>>> (during creation - just like it does for views) and links the textual
>>> query
>>> to its parse result earlier. For pl/pgsql none of that happens until
>>> the
>>> function is called. Because of this pl/pgsql allows for ambiguous
>>> sql text
>>> to exist and be concretely resolved during execution while SQL does not.
>> I don't think that's accurate. SQL functions are stored as plain text,
>> just like any other non-C-coded function, and they are not parsed until
>> execution.
>>
>> There are big differences from plpgsql of course. For one, it's
>> possible for a SQL function to be "inlined" into the calling query,
>> in which case parsing happens during planning of the calling query.
>> But other than that, I'd expect the execution-time search path
>> to determine how a SQL function behaves.
>>
>> Since Rob didn't provide any details, it's far from clear what's
>> going wrong for him.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
> Did my message with a sql and plgpsql versions not come through?
>
> I cannot create a plain sql function unless the search_path covers any
> table mentioned. Not the case when using plpgsql - no path needed.
But does the plpgsql segment_calls() run?
On other words does:
select * from segment_calls(segid uuid);
work?
>
> I'm ok(ish) with that, unless I've missed some detail.
>
> rjs
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
