Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

On 03/03/2012 02:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
> FUNCTION?
>
> check function f1();
> CHECK FUNCTION
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> In function: 'f1()'
> error:42804:5:assignment:subscripted object is not an array
> (2 rows)
>
> It seems to me that it'd be trivial to make it look like this instead:
>
> check function f1();
> function | lineno | statement | sqlstate | message | detail | hint | level | position | query
> ---------+--------+------------+----------+------------------------------------+--------+------+-------+----------+-------
> f1() | 5 | assignment | 42804 | subscripted object is not an array | | | error | |
> (1 row)
>
> This looks much nicer to me.
>
> One thing we lose is the caret marking the position of the error -- but
> I'm wondering if that really works well. I didn't test it but from the
> code it looks to me like it'd misbehave if you had a multiline statement.
>
> Opinions?

Well, if you want nicely formated table you can always call the checker
function directly, I think the statement returning something that is
more human and less machine is more consistent approach with the rest of
the utility commands. In other words I don't really see the point of it.

Petr