Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
>> one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
>> applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly
>> valid code.

> How would this work with anything other than PL/pgSQL in practice?

Well, that's TBD by the individual PL authors, but it hardly seems
implausible that there might be lint-like checks applicable in many
PLs.  As long as we have the functionality pushed out to a PL-specific
checker function, the details can be worked out later.

> So what I'd like to have is some way to say

>         check all plpythonu functions [in this schema or whatever] using
>         checker "pylint"

> where "pylint" was previously defined as a checker associated with the
> plpythonu language that actually invokes some user-defined function.

That sounds like a language-specific option to me.

> Also, what kind of report does this generate?

Good question.  I suspect what Pavel has now will raise errors, but that
doesn't scale very nicely to checking more than one function, or even to
finding more than one bug in a single function.

My first instinct is to say that it should work like plain EXPLAIN, ie,
deliver a textual report that we send as if it were a query result.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement at 2011-12-02 10:14:17 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

• Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement at 2011-12-02 18:45:16 from Pavel Stehule

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-12-02 15:11:19
	Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Previous:	From: karavelov	Date: 2011-12-02 14:23:32
	Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?