On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:14:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Better to enhance this feature step by step. > > > Agreed -- IMO this is a reasonable first step, except that I would > > rename the proposed extension so that it doesn't focus solely on > > the first step. > > Quite. The patch fails to make up its mind whether it's a trivial > example meant as a coding demonstration, or something that's going > to become actually useful. > > In the category of "actually useful", I would put checks like "are > there unqualified outer references in subqueries". That's something > we see complaints about at least once a month, I think, and it's the > type of error that even seasoned SQL authors can make easily. But > the current patch is not extensible in that direction (checking for > this in post_parse_analyze_hook seems quite impractical). > > Also, somebody who wants a check like that isn't necessarily going > to want "no WHERE clause" training wheels. So you're going to need > to think about facilities to enable or disable different checks.
This is just the discussion I'd hoped for. I'll draft up a patch in the next day or two, reflecting what's gone so far. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers