Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement

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
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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