Re: possible proposal plpgsql GET DIAGNOSTICS oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:37 PM Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 10:56 AM Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 3:08 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hi
>>>
>>> st 8. 2. 2023 v 7:33 odesílatel Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
>>> napsal:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 08:48:22PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > GET DIAGNOSTICS _oid = PG_ROUTINE_OID;
>>>> > RAISE NOTICE '... % ... %', _oid, _oid::regproc::text;
>>>> >
>>>> > Do you think it can be useful feature?
>>>>
>>>> +1, it would have been quite handy in a few of my projects.
>>>>
>>>
>>> it can looks like that
>>>
>>> create or replace function foo(a int)
>>> returns int as $$
>>> declare s text; n text; o oid;
>>> begin
>>>   get diagnostics s = pg_current_routine_signature,
>>>                   n = pg_current_routine_name,
>>>                   o = pg_current_routine_oid;
>>>   raise notice 'sign:%,  name:%,  oid:%', s, n, o;
>>>   return a;
>>> end;
>>> $$ language plpgsql;
>>> CREATE FUNCTION
>>> (2023-02-08 09:04:03) postgres=# select foo(10);
>>> NOTICE:  sign:foo(integer),  name:foo,  oid:16392
>>> ┌─────┐
>>> │ foo │
>>> ╞═════╡
>>> │  10 │
>>> └─────┘
>>> (1 row)
>>>
>>> The name - pg_routine_oid can be confusing, because there is not clean
>>> if it is oid of currently executed routine or routine from top of exception
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>
>> I agree that the name changed to pg_current_routine_...  makes the most
>> sense, great call...
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> Okay, I reviewed this.  I tested it (allocating too small of
> varchar's for values, various "signature types"),
> and also a performance test... Wow, on my VM, 10,000 Calls in a loop was
> 2-4ms...
>
> The names are clear.  Again, I tested with various options, and including
> ROW_COUNT, or not.
>
> This functions PERFECTLY....  Except there are no documentation changes.
> Because of that, I set it to Waiting on Author.
> Which might be unfair, because I could take a stab at doing the
> documentation (but docs are not compiling on my setup yet).
>
> The documentation changes are simple enough.
> If I can get the docs compiled on my rig, I will see if I can make the
> changes, and post an updated patch,
> that contains both...
>
> But I don't want to be stepping on toes, or having it look like I am
> taking credit.
>
> Regards - Kirk
>

Okay, I have modified the documentation and made sure it compiles.  They
were simple enough changes.
I am attaching this updated patch.

I have marked the item Ready for Commiter...

Thanks for your patience.  I now have a workable hacking environment!

Regards - Kirk