Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Given that new languages don't tend to appear out of the blue, I think
>> it's reasonable to design the feature considering the languages currently
>> available.
I think that position is sufficiently rebutted by Bruce's observation:
> Once we put a GUC value in a dump, we have to keep that parameter valid
> almost forever.
Since we are inventing this thing specifically to put it in dump files,
we had better take a very long-term view of its purposes.
>> None of these languages except the
>> first two have anything to gain, but everything to lose, if they were
>> asked not to check the function body during a dump restore.
That's why the code leaves it up to the individual validator routine how
much to check or not check depending on the flag setting. I have no
problem with an individual language deciding that it should or shouldn't
do a particular check. I do think that we'd be foolish to make advance
judgements about what those decisions will be.
Bottom line is that I wouldn't object to changing the switch name to
something more general ("restore_validation_mode", maybe?) but I think
that changing it to something more specific would be a mistake in the
long run.
regards, tom lane
