Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-12-11T05:10:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >> Now, PG has no any tool for checking dependency between functions and other >> objects. > Isn't that already done for SQL function's (fmgr_sql_validator)? Pavel's point is that the only way to find out if the validator will fail is to run it and see if it fails; and even if it does, how much will you know about why? That's not particularly helpful for pg_dump, which needs to understand dependencies in a fairly deep fashion. It not only needs to figure out how to dump the database objects in a dependency-safe order, but what to do to break dependency loops. Right now I believe that pg_dump has a workable strategy for every possible case of circular dependencies, because they are all caused by secondary attributes of objects that can be split out and applied later, for example applying a column default via ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN SET DEFAULT rather than listing the default right in the CREATE TABLE command. However, if function A depends on B and also vice-versa (mutual recursion is not exactly an unheard-of technique), there is no way to load them both if the function bodies are both checked at creation time. I guess we could invent some equivalent of a forward declaration, but that still leaves us short of understanding what the function body is depending on. regards, tom lane