From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Date: | 2011-12-02 10:14:17 |
Message-ID: | 1322820857.1658.16.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
Here is an additional use case: There are a bunch of syntax and style
checkers for Python: pylint, pyflakes, pep8, pychecker, and maybe more.
I would like to have a way to use these for PL/Python. Right now I use
a tool I wrote called plpylint (https://github.com/petere/plpylint)
which pulls the source code out of the database and runs pylint on the
client, which works well enough, but what is being discussed here could
lead to a better solution.
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.
Also, what kind of report does this generate?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-12-02 10:52:19 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-02 08:59:01 | Re: bug of recovery? |