Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement

From: Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Date: 2018-12-05 18:14:57
Message-ID: CAAfz9KN_U22Uvv6M4ToGzt+O=T7jjyKA4-14io2At6AU4R+uqA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:13, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> Hi
>
> I wrote plpgsql_check https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check.
>
> It is working well, but because it does static analyse only, sometimes it can produces false alarms or it should to stop a analyse, because there are not necessary data.
>
> https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check/issues/36
>
> I see one possible solution in introduction of pragma statement with syntax:
>
> PRAGMA keyword [content to semicolon];
>
> The pragma has a relation to following statement. So the issue 36 can be solved by pragma
>
> PRAGMA cmdtype CREATE;
> EXECUTE format('CREATE TABLE xxx ...
>
> The PRAGMA statement does nothing in runtime. It works only in compile time, and add a pair of key, value to next non pragma statement. This information can be used by some plpgsql extensions.
>
> What do you think about this proposal?
I think it's a good idea in common. But how about multiple PRAGMAs? Consider

PRAGMA cmdtype CREATE;
PRAGMA objtype TABLE;
EXECUTE format('CREATE TABLE');

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-05 18:22:23 Re: slow queries over information schema.tables
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-12-05 17:56:57 Re: slow queries over information schema.tables