Re: [REVIEW] prepare plans of embedded sql on function start

Hello

I started work on proposed check statement option and there are a few questions?

what is sense of this statement for others PL? When we solve a mainly
PL/pgSQL issue, has sense to implement new statement? Isn't a some
problem in our CREATE FUNCTION design? A separation to two steps
should has a little bit strange behave - we cannot to check a function
before their registration (we can, but we should to do a some game
with names) - there is necessary some a conditional CREATE FUNCTION
statement - some like "CREATE CHECKED FUNCTION " or CHECK FUNCTION
with function body.

comments?

Regards

Pavel Stehule


2011/9/11 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> writes:
>> [ Andy's dubious about adding plpgsql syntax to control this feature ]
>
> Yeah, that bothers me a lot too.
>
>> One option I'd thought about, was to extended ANALYZE to support functions.
>
> That's actually quite a good idea, not least because the extra checking
> happens only when you ask for it and not every time the function is
> loaded into a new session.
>
> I'm not that happy with overloading the ANALYZE keyword to mean this
> (especially not since there is already meaning attached to the syntax
> "ANALYZE x(y)").  But we could certainly use some other name --- I'm
> inclined to suggest CHECK:
>
>        CHECK FUNCTION function_name(arglist);
>
> People would want some sort of wild card capability; at the very least
> "check all plpgsql functions owned by me".  Not sure what that ought
> to look like syntactically.
>
> It might also be a good idea to make sure there's room in the syntax to
> specify different checking options.  We already would have reason to
> want "just do the existing style of validation check" versus this more
> intensive check.  And it's not hard to foresee other sorts of checking
> in future.
>
> Also, this would force us to invent PL-independent infrastructure for
> doing the checking.  I'm envisioning an additional argument to the
> existing PL validator function that tells it what checking options to
> use.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>