there is VIP patch of plpgsql_check_function that supports this warning
2012/4/15 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2012/4/15 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> We can raise warning from CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION - but I would to
>>> like have plpgsql_check_function inside core - and it is better place
>>> for this and similar issues.
>> I agree. This is a perfectly legal use of nested declaration scopes,
>> so it would be totally inappropriate to complain about it in normal
>> use of a plpgsql function. On the other hand, it would probably be
>> sane and useful for CHECK FUNCTION to flag any case where an inner
>> declaration shadows an outer-scope name (not only the specific case
>> of topmost block vs function parameter).
> yes, it is very simple check there. There should be "levels" of
> warnings in future and performance or semantic warnings.
> But, we don't need to increase complexity of CHECK FUNCTION now. A
> design of CHECK FUNCTION was rich for this purposes. And we need to
> find way to push plpgsql_check_function to core first.
>> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2012-04-17 10:25:09|
|Subject: Re: Last gasp|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-04-17 09:06:05|
|Subject: Re: [BUG] Checkpointer on hot standby runs without looking