Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: 2019-03-09 21:17:31
Message-ID: CAFj8pRD1er3WyGvhEKs0CkBg157StYr4CBQFaVvDE=y_yDqYnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

čt 7. 3. 2019 v 18:45 odesílatel Andrew Dunstan <
andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> napsal:

>
> On 3/7/19 12:41 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >
> > čt 7. 3. 2019 v 18:35 odesílatel Andrew Dunstan
> > <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> > <mailto:andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> napsal:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The other thing that bugs me a bit about the patch is that the only
> > testing it does it to make sure that pragmas are ignored by the core
> > plpgsql processor. Maybe that's enough, but mostly we tend to like to
> > have one actual use of a feature.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately plpgsql_check is not part of upstream
> >
> > https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check
> >
> > I can to write some simple extension - some print tracing, that can
> > use this feature?
> >
> >
>
> Works for me. Another idea I had was some sort of crypto signature pragma.
>

Here is pragma patch with demo

Regards

Pavel

>
>
> I still think making it block level only is unwarranted, though.
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> andrew
>
>
> --
> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
pragma-with-tracer.patch text/x-patch 19.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Martinez 2019-03-09 21:27:29 Re: PATCH: Include all columns in default names for foreign key constraints.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-03-09 21:06:33 Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?