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
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|