Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
>> one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
>> applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly
>> valid code.
> How would this work with anything other than PL/pgSQL in practice?
Well, that's TBD by the individual PL authors, but it hardly seems
implausible that there might be lint-like checks applicable in many
PLs. As long as we have the functionality pushed out to a PL-specific
checker function, the details can be worked out later.
> So what I'd like to have is some way to say
> check all plpythonu functions [in this schema or whatever] using
> checker "pylint"
> where "pylint" was previously defined as a checker associated with the
> plpythonu language that actually invokes some user-defined function.
That sounds like a language-specific option to me.
> Also, what kind of report does this generate?
Good question. I suspect what Pavel has now will raise errors, but that
doesn't scale very nicely to checking more than one function, or even to
finding more than one bug in a single function.
My first instinct is to say that it should work like plain EXPLAIN, ie,
deliver a textual report that we send as if it were a query result.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
