On 2014-09-05 11:33 PM, David G Johnston wrote:
To protect users on every query they write there would need to be some kind
of "always explain first and only execute if no warnings are thrown"
mode...and ideally some way to then override that on a per-query basis if
you know you are correct and don't want to fix the SQL...
If the static check fails the query itself would error and the detail would
contain the status result of the static analysis; otherwise the query should
return as normal.
This feels even sillier. Instinctively, if you can contain the
functionality into the EXPLAIN path only, I don't see why you couldn't
do it in a single if (..) for every query. I doubt you could ever
measure that difference.
This at least avoids having to introduce 10 different GUC just to
accommodate this feature and neatly bundles them into named packages.
I disagree. Even if there was such a "static analysis" mode, I think
there would have to be some way of filtering some of them out.
But "10 difference GUCs" can still be avoided; see
plpgsql.extra_warnings, for example.
.marko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
