| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
| Date: | 2013-12-09 21:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | 52A632B7.6030804@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-12-09 21:18:59 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-09 20:26:25 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |