From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Date: | 2018-12-06 17:27:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCnu70yJ-BRT-U0uebNTko21=m-VXYXHgK1e6-2ahXeLQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
čt 6. 12. 2018 v 18:17 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:13 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > My idea about plpgsql PRAGMA is very close to PL/SQL or Ada PRAGMA. This
> is not runtime statement - the information from this command will be
> assigned to related object - function, block, command at parser time.
>
> That's sensible, but the syntax you were proposing didn't look like it
> was related to a specific statement. I was objecting to the idea that
> PRAGMA whatever; should be construed as an annotation of,
> specifically, the following statement.
>
please, can you propose, some what you like?
For my purpose I can imagine PRAGMA on function level with same syntax like
PL/SQL - I need to push somewhere some information that I can use for
plpgsql_check to protect users against false alarms. The locality in this
moment is not too important for me. But I prefer solution that doesn't
looks too strange, and is possible just with change plpgsql parser.
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lætitia Avrot | 2018-12-06 17:30:02 | Alter table documentation page (again) |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2018-12-06 17:23:28 | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |