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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: SQL-standard function body
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRC_Ck_EiPg6dYxOW1v_d7t=PbfBoD-urOoFKfb+mEe2=g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL-standard function body  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


st 1. 7. 2020 v 16:14 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
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?

This simple analysis stops on first record type usage. PLpgSQL allows some dynamic work that increases the complexity of static analysis.

Regards

Pavel


                        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL-standard function body
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: estimation problems for DISTINCT ON with FDW