Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the important point here is that we need to support more than >> one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be >> applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly >> valid code.
> How would this work with anything other than PL/pgSQL in practice? Well, that's TBD by the individual PL authors, but it hardly seems implausible that there might be lint-like checks applicable in many PLs. As long as we have the functionality pushed out to a PL-specific checker function, the details can be worked out later. > So what I'd like to have is some way to say > check all plpythonu functions [in this schema or whatever] using > checker "pylint" > where "pylint" was previously defined as a checker associated with the > plpythonu language that actually invokes some user-defined function. That sounds like a language-specific option to me. > Also, what kind of report does this generate? Good question. I suspect what Pavel has now will raise errors, but that doesn't scale very nicely to checking more than one function, or even to finding more than one bug in a single function. My first instinct is to say that it should work like plain EXPLAIN, ie, deliver a textual report that we send as if it were a query result. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers