| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures |
| Date: | 2021-04-09 16:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 2198092.1617985023@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 04/09/21 08:11, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
>> At least the description should mention procedures.
>> Even the parameter name seems not to be correct anymore. Thoughts?
> It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
> out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
> "check_function_bodies" really means in that setting.
That parameter is also set explicitly in pg_dump output, so we
can't rename it without breaking existing dump files.
Admittedly, guc.c does have provisions for substituting new names
if we rename some parameter. But I'm not in a hurry to create
more instances of that behavior; the potential for confusion
seems to outweigh any benefit.
+1 for updating the description though. We could s/function/routine/
where space is tight.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2021-04-09 16:21:59 | Re: Avoid unnecessary table open/close for TRUNCATE foo, foo, foo; kind of commands |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-04-09 16:12:03 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |