Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

On 03/03/2012 02:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
> FUNCTION?
>
> check function f1();
>                         CHECK FUNCTION
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>   In function: 'f1()'
>   error:42804:5:assignment:subscripted object is not an array
> (2 rows)
>
> It seems to me that it'd be trivial to make it look like this instead:
>
> check function f1();
> function | lineno | statement  | sqlstate |              message               | detail | hint | level | position |
query
>
---------+--------+------------+----------+------------------------------------+--------+------+-------+----------+-------
> f1()     |      5 | assignment | 42804    | subscripted object is not an array |        |      | error |          |
> (1 row)
>
> This looks much nicer to me.
>
> One thing we lose is the caret marking the position of the error -- but
> I'm wondering if that really works well.  I didn't test it but from the
> code it looks to me like it'd misbehave if you had a multiline statement.
>
> Opinions?

Well, if you want nicely formated table you can always call the checker 
function directly, I think the statement returning something that is 
more human and less machine is more consistent approach with the rest of 
the utility commands. In other words I don't really see the point of it.

Petr