> Hello > > I am working on plpgsql_check and I would to write a protection against > repeated check - so I need to mark a compiled (cached) function. Now, > plpgsql extension can store own data to exec state, and I would to some > similar for plpgsql_function. I believe so it can be useful for any plpgsql > extension that collects data per signature (and recreating) means so > refresh is necessary.
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you want to avoid running the checker if a previous run was seen as successful and function has not changed? Suppose the function depends on a table. I invoke the check (it succeeds), then drop the table, then invoke the check again. What should happen? Conversely, if I invoke the check and it fails, then I create the table and invoke the check again, what should happen? How does this idea of yours know when to invalidate the cached result of the check when unrelated objects, which the function depends on, are dropped/created/modified?
plpgsql_check is designed for interactive (active) mode and passive mode. In interactive mode a enhanced checking is started by explicit request - explicit using plpgsql_check function - this feature is taken from patches that I sent to mailing list. In this mode a check is executed always (when checking is enabled) - and it is called repeatedly (when user requests it).
Passive mode is taken from plpgsql_lint extension. It is plpgsql extension based on begin_func callback. plpgsql_lint doesn't support fatal_errors option - every detected error is fatal, that stops execution. plpgsql_check allows fatal_errors = false (plpgsql_check raises warnings only], and I am searching way how to minimize repeated warning messages. It is one motivation. Second motivation is increasing speed of regression tests by removing repeated check. Good idea is a function that removes mark from compiled function - so anybody can do recheck without leaving of session.
Requested feature doesn't help me implement this concept 100%, but helps with check If I worked with some instance of function or not. And inside core a implementation is cheap. Outside core it is a magic with hash and checking transaction id (about 200 lines). When I worked on extension for coverage calculation I had to solve same task, so I think so this variable can be useful generally for similar tasks.
