Re: proposal - reglanguage type
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal - reglanguage type |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRA63ZPCcbKDRwLKrw-wAZbOCZKvZyp8=dEBxEruE=H4ng@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal - reglanguage type (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
ne 1. 3. 2020 v 19:31 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I miss a reglanguage type from our set of reg* types.
I'm skeptical about this. I don't think we want to wind up with a reg*
type for every system catalog, so there needs to be some rule about which
ones it's worth the trouble for. The original idea was to provide a reg*
type if the lookup rule would be anything more complicated than "select
oid from <catalog> where name = 'foo'". We went beyond that with
regnamespace and regrole, but I think there was a sufficient argument of
usefulness for those two. I don't see that reglanguage has enough of
a use-case.
the use-case is probably only one - filtering pg_proc. Probably the most common filter is
prolang = (SELECT oid FROM pg_language WHERE lanname = 'plpgsql')
It's little bit not comfortable so for namespace we can do pronamespace <> 'pg_catalog'::regnamespace and there is nothing for language.
This feature is interesting for people who write code in plpgsql, or who migrate from PL/SQL (and for people who use plpgsql_check).
All mass check (mass usage of plpgsql_check) have to use filter on prolang.
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: