Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> But then I would have to map all language-specific error reports to some
> SQL error scheme, which is not only cumbersome but pretty useless. For
> example, a Python programmer will be familiar with the typical output
> that pylint produces and how to fix it. If we hide that output behind
> the layer of SQL-ness, that won't make things easier to anyone.
Yeah, this is a good point. I'm willing to concede that we are not
close to having a uniform API that could be used for checker functions,
so maybe what we should do for now is just invent
plpgsql_check_function(regprocedure). I'd still like to see the
question revisited sometime in the future, but it would be appropriate
to have a few working examples of popular checker functions for
different languages before we try to invent a common API.
regards, tom lane
