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

Disabling function validation

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Disabling function validation
Date: 2003-10-06 22:52:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Given that new languages don't tend to appear out of the blue, I think
> >> it's reasonable to design the feature considering the languages currently
> >> available.
> I think that position is sufficiently rebutted by Bruce's observation:
> > Once we put a GUC value in a dump, we have to keep that parameter valid
> > almost forever.
> Since we are inventing this thing specifically to put it in dump files,
> we had better take a very long-term view of its purposes.
> >> None of these languages except the
> >> first two have anything to gain, but everything to lose, if they were
> >> asked not to check the function body during a dump restore.
> That's why the code leaves it up to the individual validator routine how
> much to check or not check depending on the flag setting.  I have no
> problem with an individual language deciding that it should or shouldn't
> do a particular check.  I do think that we'd be foolish to make advance
> judgements about what those decisions will be.
> Bottom line is that I wouldn't object to changing the switch name to
> something more general ("restore_validation_mode", maybe?) but I think
> that changing it to something more specific would be a mistake in the
> long run.

[ Moved to hackers.]

I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more
general.  I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used
to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing.  An even more
general idea would be to have something like "restore_mode", and perhaps
could handle cases like allowing a larger sort_mem or other
optimizations during restore.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-10-06 22:55:13
Subject: Re: Architecture Roadmap?
Previous:From: James RogersDate: 2003-10-06 22:48:08
Subject: Architecture Roadmap?

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-06 23:13:30
Subject: Re: Disabling function validation
Previous:From: Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQLDate: 2003-10-06 21:50:45
Subject: pgsql-server/src/bin/psql po/it.po

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