Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRCkfGwVXcTPhWjTEYUtGtxGkv9wvheF7aXWL1HijZv0+w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello

a small addition

* don't check SQL functions - are checked well now
* don't check functions from information_schema too

Regards

Pavel

2011/12/8 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
> Hello
>
> updated version
>
> changes:
>
> * CHECK FUNCTION ALL; is enabled - in this case functions from
> pg_catalog schema are ignored
>
> I looked on parser, and I didn't other changes there - IN SCHEMA, FOR
> ROLE are used more time there, so our usage will be consistent
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
> 2011/12/7 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> The syntax error messages are still inadequate; all I can get is
>>>> 'syntax error at or near "%s"'.  They should be more detailed.
>>>
>>> this system is based on error messages that generates a plpgsql engine
>>> or bison engine. I can correct only a few percent from these messages
>>> :(
>>>
>>> internally I didn't wrote a compiler or plpgsql checker - this is just
>>> tool that can emit some plpgsql interpret subprocess - and when these
>>> subprocesses raises exceptions, then takes their messages.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>>>> I think that at least the documentation should be improved before
>>>> I am ready to set this as "ready for committer".
>>>
>>> please, can you send a correction to documentation or error messages?
>>>
>>> I am not able to write documentation
>>
>> I'll give it a try.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Laurenz Albe

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Lots of FSM-related fragility in transaction commit