Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY0EeiC6CB9QfHg_z8qu=U0YkcCAFpY7h02b_jfSddhfA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | proposal: plpgsql pragma statement (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:13 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote plpgsql_check https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check. > > It is working well, but because it does static analyse only, sometimes it can produces false alarms or it should to stopa analyse, because there are not necessary data. > > https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check/issues/36 > > I see one possible solution in introduction of pragma statement with syntax: > > PRAGMA keyword [content to semicolon]; > > The pragma has a relation to following statement. So the issue 36 can be solved by pragma > > PRAGMA cmdtype CREATE; > EXECUTE format('CREATE TABLE xxx ... > > The PRAGMA statement does nothing in runtime. It works only in compile time, and add a pair of key, value to next non pragmastatement. This information can be used by some plpgsql extensions. > > What do you think about this proposal? I think it's commandeering PRAGMA for a fairly narrow purpose. It's hardly unimaginable that someone in future might want a PRAGMA that does change runtime behavior, or that affects something other than the statement which immediately follows. I don't see a big problem allowing some kind of annotation that plpgsql_check can easily access, and I don't even mind it being called PRAGMA. But I don't think it should foreclose unrelated uses of PRAGMA which somebody might want to introduce in the future. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: