Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Well, the more I think about it and look at this patch, the more I think
>> that this would be complete overkill and possibly quite useless for my
>> purposes. I can implement the entire essence of this framework (except
>> the plpgsql_checker itself, which is clearly useful) in 10 lines,
>> namely:
>>
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pep8(src text) RETURNS text
>> IMMUTABLE
>> LANGUAGE plsh
>> AS $$
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> pep8 --ignore=W391 <(echo "$1") 2>&1 | sed -r 's/^[^:]*://'
>> $$;
>>
>> SELECT proname, pep8(prosrc) FROM pg_proc WHERE prolang = ANY (SELECT oid
>> FROM pg_language WHERE lanname LIKE '%python%') ORDER BY 1;
>>
>> I don't know what more one would need.
> Well, I agree with you, but Tom disagrees, so that's why we're talking
> about it...
What Peter's example demonstrates is that you can apply a single checker
for a single language without bothering with any common framework.
Well, yeah. What I've wanted from this patch from the beginning was a
common framework. That is, I want to be able to write something like
SELECT check_function(oid) FROM pg_proc WHERE proowner = 'tgl'
and have it "just work" for all languages for which I have checkers.
You can't get that with a collection of ad-hoc checkers.
If we're going to go the ad-hoc route, there seems little reason to be
considering a core patch at all. Freestanding checkers could just as
well be independent projects.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
