Horton

Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-02T10:14:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add const qualifiers to node inspection functions

On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
> one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
> applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly
> valid code.

How would this work with anything other than PL/pgSQL in practice?

Here is an additional use case:  There are a bunch of syntax and style
checkers for Python: pylint, pyflakes, pep8, pychecker, and maybe more.
I would like to have a way to use these for PL/Python.  Right now I use
a tool I wrote called plpylint (https://github.com/petere/plpylint),
which pulls the source code out of the database and runs pylint on the
client, which works well enough, but what is being discussed here could
lead to a better solution.

So what I'd like to have is some way to say

        check all plpythonu functions [in this schema or whatever] using
        checker "pylint"

where "pylint" was previously defined as a checker associated with the
plpythonu language that actually invokes some user-defined function.

Also, what kind of report does this generate?