Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Doc: update documentation of check_function_bodies.

  1. check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

    Daniel Westermann (DWE) <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> — 2021-04-09T12:11:35Z

    Hi,

check_function_bodies has this description: 

postgres=# select short_desc from pg_settings where name = 'check_function_bodies';
                  short_desc                   
-----------------------------------------------
 Check function bodies during CREATE FUNCTION.
(1 row)

This is not the whole truth since we have procedures, as this affects CREATE PROCEDURE as well:

postgres=# create procedure p1 ( a int ) as $$ beginn null; end $$ language plpgsql;
ERROR:  syntax error at or near "beginn"
LINE 1: create procedure p1 ( a int ) as $$ beginn null; end $$ lang...
                                            ^
postgres=# set check_function_bodies = false;
SET
postgres=# create procedure p1 ( a int ) as $$ beginn null; end $$ language plpgsql;
CREATE PROCEDURE
postgres=# 

At least the description should mention procedures. Even the parameter name seems not to be correct anymore. Thoughts?

Regards
Daniel

  2. Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

    Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> — 2021-04-09T13:21:42Z

    On 04/09/21 08:11, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> At least the description should mention procedures.
> Even the parameter name seems not to be correct anymore. Thoughts?

It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
"check_function_bodies" really means in that setting. For instance,
it's documented in PL/Java that check_function_bodies really means
the (precompiled) class file is loaded and the presence of its
dependencies and the target method confirmed.

That means that any change to the parameter name could result in
some documentation churn in the extension world.

Regards,
-Chap

  3. Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-04-09T16:17:03Z

    Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 04/09/21 08:11, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
>> At least the description should mention procedures.
>> Even the parameter name seems not to be correct anymore. Thoughts?

> It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
> out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
> "check_function_bodies" really means in that setting.

That parameter is also set explicitly in pg_dump output, so we
can't rename it without breaking existing dump files.

Admittedly, guc.c does have provisions for substituting new names
if we rename some parameter.  But I'm not in a hurry to create
more instances of that behavior; the potential for confusion
seems to outweigh any benefit.

+1 for updating the description though.  We could s/function/routine/
where space is tight.

			regards, tom lane

  4. Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

    Daniel Westermann (DWE) <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> — 2021-04-10T07:56:36Z

    >> It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
>> out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
>> "check_function_bodies" really means in that setting.

>That parameter is also set explicitly in pg_dump output, so we
>can't rename it without breaking existing dump files.

>Admittedly, guc.c does have provisions for substituting new names
>if we rename some parameter.  But I'm not in a hurry to create
>more instances of that behavior; the potential for confusion
>seems to outweigh any benefit.

>+1 for updating the description though.  We could s/function/routine/
>where space is tight.

Thanks for your inputs. Attached a proposal which updates the description.

Regards
Daniel

  5. Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-04-10T16:09:26Z

    "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> writes:
>> +1 for updating the description though.  We could s/function/routine/
>> where space is tight.

> Thanks for your inputs. Attached a proposal which updates the description.

I changed config.sgml's description similarly, and pushed this.

			regards, tom lane