Tom Lane writes:

> > If it's only honored by SQL functions, then it should probably be called
> > check_sql_function_bodies.
>
> I thought about that while I was making the patch, but decided that it
> would be a very un-forward-looking name.  Someday we will probably have
> syntax-checking validators for plpgsql, etc.

The point of this feature is to avoid failures because of forward
references in SQL code.  A syntax-checking validator in anything but
possibly plpgsql will not even look at SQL code, so a validator for
a different language will only gain pain and confusion by respecting this
parameter.  Perhaps it needs to different name altogether, along the lines
of "do not check SQL code in functions".

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

• Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... at 2003-10-04 03:55:42 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... at 2003-10-04 23:44:40 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2003-10-04 23:15:15
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb
Previous:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2003-10-04 22:00:13
	Subject: Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2003-10-04 23:04:18
	Subject: Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml rc/interf ...
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQL	Date: 2003-10-04 22:50:20
	Subject: pgsql-server/src/backend/po es.po