On 08/02/16 14:16, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2016-02-08 13:53 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko@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
becauseblown-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