Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
From: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-12-09T21:14:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 12/9/13 1:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > So presumably it would be check_never, not check_newer... :) BTW, it's not terribly hard to work around the temp table issue; you just need to create the expected table in the session when you create the function. But even in this case, I think it would still be good to check what we can, like at least basic plpgsql syntax. > > > I sorry. > > You cannot to create temporary table - this check should not have any side effect - and creating temporary table can run some event trigger. > > But there should be some hints for check like annotations or some similar. Or you can minimize a area where check will be disabled. Sorry, I meant that the user can work around it by creating the table. I didn't mean to imply that we would magically create a temp table to do the checking. -- Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net