Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
От | Albe Laurenz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C207348A94@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule wrote: > updated version > > changes: > > * CHECK FUNCTION ALL; is enabled - in this case functions from > pg_catalog schema are ignored > > I looked on parser, and I didn't other changes there - IN SCHEMA, FOR > ROLE are used more time there, so our usage will be consistent > a small addition > > * don't check SQL functions - are checked well now > * don't check functions from information_schema too One hunk in the patch fails due to conflict with commit d5f23af6bfbc454e86dd16e5c7a0bfc0cf6189d0 (Peter Eisentraut's const patch). There are also compiler warnings about discarded const qualifiers in backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c, backend/nodes/equalfuncs.c and backend/parser/gram.y. There is a bug when ALL IN SCHEMA or ALL IN LANGUAGE is used: test=> CHECK FUNCTION ALL IN LANGUAGE plpgsql; ERROR: language "language" does not exist test=> CHECK FUNCTION ALL IN SCHEMA laurenz; ERROR: schema "schema" does not exist Something gets mixed up here. I like the idea that CHECK FUNCTION ALL without additional clauses works and ignores pg_catalog and information_schema! I'm working on some documentation, but it won't be final before the functionality is agreed upon. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: