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

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Date
Msg-id D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C207348A94@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 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

> a small addition
> 
> * don't check SQL functions - are checked well now
> * don't check functions from information_schema too

One hunk in the patch fails due to conflict with
commit d5f23af6bfbc454e86dd16e5c7a0bfc0cf6189d0
(Peter Eisentraut's const patch).

There are also compiler warnings about discarded const
qualifiers in backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c,
backend/nodes/equalfuncs.c and backend/parser/gram.y.

There is a bug when ALL IN SCHEMA or ALL IN LANGUAGE
is used:

test=> CHECK FUNCTION ALL IN LANGUAGE plpgsql;
ERROR:  language "language" does not exist
test=> CHECK FUNCTION ALL IN SCHEMA laurenz;
ERROR:  schema "schema" does not exist

Something gets mixed up here.

I like the idea that CHECK FUNCTION ALL without additional
clauses works and ignores pg_catalog and information_schema!

I'm working on some documentation, but it won't be final before
the functionality is agreed upon.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Shulgin
Date:
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Collecting statistics on CSV file data