Re: Missing can't-assign-to-constant checks in plpgsql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing can't-assign-to-constant checks in plpgsql
Date: 2022-04-30 15:57:55
Message-ID: 610683.1651334275@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> čt 28. 4. 2022 v 23:52 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
>> Perhaps the OPEN change is a little too aggressive, since if
>> you give the refcursor variable some non-null initial value,
>> OPEN won't change it; in that usage a CONSTANT marking could
>> be allowed. But I really seriously doubt that anybody out
>> there is marking such variables as constants, so I thought
>> throwing the error at compile time was better than postponing
>> it to runtime so we could handle that.
>>
>> Regardless of which way we handle that point, I'm inclined to
>> change this only in HEAD. Probably people wouldn't thank us
>> for making the back branches more strict.

> +1

After sleeping on it, I got cold feet about breaking arguably
legal code, so I made OPEN check at runtime instead. Which
was probably a good thing anyway, because it made me notice
that exec_stmt_forc() needed a check too. AFAICS there are no
other places in pl_exec.c that are performing assignments to
variables not checked at parse time.

Pushed that way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2022-04-30 16:24:02 Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect.
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2022-04-30 12:49:09 Re: Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available