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

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. For instance,
it's documented in PL/Java that check_function_bodies really means
the (precompiled) class file is loaded and the presence of its
dependencies and the target method confirmed.

That means that any change to the parameter name could result in
some documentation churn in the extension world.

Regards,
-Chap