On 08/02/16 14:16, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2016-02-08 13:53 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to>:
Yeah, and that's exactly what I don't want, because that means that CREATE
SCHEMA VARIABLE suddenly breaks existing code.
theoretically yes, but this conflict can be 100% detected - so no quiet bug
is possible, and plpgsql_check can find this issue well. If you don't use
schema variable, then your code will be correct. You have to explicitly
create the variable, and if there will be any problem, then the problem
will be only in PL functions in one schema. And you can identify it by
statical analyse.
I'm sorry, but I think you've got your priorities completely backwards.
You're saying that it's OK to add a footgun because blown-off pieces
of feet can be found by using a third party static analyzer barely
anyone uses. And at best, that footgun is only a very minor convenience
(though I'd argue that omitting it actually hurts readability).
That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
.m
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
