Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 04/09/21 08:11, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
>> At least the description should mention procedures.
>> Even the parameter name seems not to be correct anymore. Thoughts?

> It's possible the parameter name also appears in documentation for
> out-of-tree PLs, as each PL's validator function determines what
> "check_function_bodies" really means in that setting.

That parameter is also set explicitly in pg_dump output, so we
can't rename it without breaking existing dump files.

Admittedly, guc.c does have provisions for substituting new names
if we rename some parameter.  But I'm not in a hurry to create
more instances of that behavior; the potential for confusion
seems to outweigh any benefit.

+1 for updating the description though.  We could s/function/routine/
where space is tight.

            regards, tom lane