Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 (,
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?

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Albe LaurenzDate: 2011-12-02 10:52:19
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-12-02 08:59:01
Subject: Re: bug of recovery?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group