Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
От | Selena Deckelmann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAN1EF+zH8FUzs6FqnbA3fGJAbBRaOb5HSKAp5nKcD1KL0jHVbQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi! On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > I am sending lightly refreshed patch for checking plpgsql functions.. > > I checked different implementation, but without success: a) enhancing > of SPI to some fake mode can has negative impact on application, and > patch was not clear, b) generic plpgsql walker doesn't save lines too. > > I invite any ideas how to improve this patch I reviewed this and did a clean up for bitrot and a little whitespace. In particular, it needed to learn a little about event triggers. This patch is a follow on from an earlier review thread I found: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2072DF447@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at I dug through that thread a bit, and I believe issues raised by Laurenz, Petr and Alvaro were resolved by Pavel over time. All tests pass, and after a read-through, the code seems fine. This also represents my inaugural use of pg_bsd_indent. I ran it on pl_check.c - which made things mostly better. Happy to try and fix it up more if someone can explain to me what (if anything) I did incorrectly when using it. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: