| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, 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: | 2013-12-10 20:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 9271.1386708658@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is a very good point. Annotating the function itself with
> markers that cause it to be more strictly checked will create a
> dump/reload problem that we won't enjoy solving. The decision to
> check the function more strictly or not would need to be based on some
> kind of session state that users could establish but dump restore
> would not.
One would hope that turning off check_function_bodies would be sufficient
to disable any added checking, though, so I don't see this being a problem
for pg_dump. But there might be other scenarios where an additional knob
would be useful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-12-10 21:04:12 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-10 20:48:43 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |