Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Selena Deckelmann
Subject Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
Date
Msg-id CAN1EF+zH8FUzs6FqnbA3fGJAbBRaOb5HSKAp5nKcD1KL0jHVbQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi!

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sending lightly refreshed patch for checking plpgsql functions..
>
> I checked different implementation, but without success: a) enhancing
> of SPI to some fake mode can has negative impact on application, and
> patch was not clear, b) generic plpgsql walker doesn't save lines too.
>
> I invite any ideas how to improve this patch

I reviewed this and did a clean up for bitrot and a little whitespace.
In particular, it needed to learn a little about event triggers.

This patch is a follow on from an earlier review thread I found:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2072DF447@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at

I dug through that thread a bit, and I believe issues raised by
Laurenz, Petr and Alvaro were resolved by Pavel over time.

All tests pass, and after a read-through, the code seems fine.

This also represents my inaugural use of pg_bsd_indent. I ran it on
pl_check.c - which made things mostly better. Happy to try and fix it
up more if someone can explain to me what (if anything) I did
incorrectly when using it.

-selena

--
http://chesnok.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Regarding identifying a foreign scan
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit API for large object