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
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?|