Re: proposal - reglanguage type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: proposal - reglanguage type
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRA63ZPCcbKDRwLKrw-wAZbOCZKvZyp8=dEBxEruE=H4ng@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal - reglanguage type  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


ne 1. 3. 2020 v 19:31 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I miss a reglanguage type from our set of reg* types.

I'm skeptical about this.  I don't think we want to wind up with a reg*
type for every system catalog, so there needs to be some rule about which
ones it's worth the trouble for.  The original idea was to provide a reg*
type if the lookup rule would be anything more complicated than "select
oid from <catalog> where name = 'foo'".  We went beyond that with
regnamespace and regrole, but I think there was a sufficient argument of
usefulness for those two.  I don't see that reglanguage has enough of
a use-case.

the use-case is probably only one - filtering pg_proc. Probably the most common filter is

prolang = (SELECT oid                    FROM pg_language                   WHERE lanname = 'plpgsql')
It's little bit not comfortable so for namespace we can do pronamespace <> 'pg_catalog'::regnamespace and there is nothing for language.

This feature is interesting for people who write code in plpgsql, or who migrate from PL/SQL (and for people who use plpgsql_check).

All mass check (mass usage of plpgsql_check) have to use filter on prolang.

Regards

Pavel


 

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal - reglanguage type
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT