From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |
Date: | 2016-02-09 14:32:10 |
Message-ID: | 56B9F86A.3010103@joh.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/02/16 14:16, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2016-02-08 13:53 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
>>
>> Yeah, and that's exactly what I don't want, because that means that CREATE
>> SCHEMA VARIABLE suddenly breaks existing code.
>>
>
> theoretically yes, but this conflict can be 100% detected - so no quiet bug
> is possible, and plpgsql_check can find this issue well. If you don't use
> schema variable, then your code will be correct. You have to explicitly
> create the variable, and if there will be any problem, then the problem
> will be only in PL functions in one schema. And you can identify it by
> statical analyse.
I'm sorry, but I think you've got your priorities completely backwards.
You're saying that it's OK to add a footgun because blown-off pieces
of feet can be found by using a third party static analyzer barely
anyone uses. And at best, that footgun is only a very minor convenience
(though I'd argue that omitting it actually hurts readability).
That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
.m
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2016-02-09 14:40:52 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2016-02-09 14:21:13 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |