Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRA8qHnT_73kezZ2Mh3MorBu8MufUJn=w4zaPKLz+ZsDzw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2  (Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>)
Список pgsql-hackers



2014-09-03 23:19 GMT+02:00 Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>:
On 09/03/2014 05:09 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 9/3/14 5:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep  3, 2014 at 07:54:09AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> I am not against to improve a PL/pgSQL. And I repeat, what can be
>>> done and can
>>> be done early:
>>>
>>> a) ASSERT clause -- with some other modification to allow better
>>> static analyze
>>> of DML statements, and enforces checks in runtime.
>>>
>>> b) #option or PRAGMA clause with GUC with function scope that
>>> enforce check on
>>> processed rows after any DML statement
>>>
>>> c) maybe introduction automatic variable ROW_COUNT as shortcut for GET
>>> DIAGNOSTICS rc = ROW_COUNT
>>
>> All these ideas are being captured somewhere, right?  Where?
>
> I'm working on a wiki page with all these ideas.  Some of them break
> backwards compatibility somewhat blatantly, some of them could be
> added into PL/PgSQL if we're okay with reserving a keyword for the
> feature. All of them we think are necessary.

Ok, here are my 0.5 cents worth of proposals for some features discussed
in this thread

They should be backwards compatible, but perhaps they are not very
ADA/SQL-kosher  ;)

They also could be implemented as macros first with possible
optimisations in the future


1. Conditions for number of rows returned by SELECT or touched by UPDATE
or DELETE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcing number of rows returned/affected could be done using the
following syntax which is concise and clear (and should be in no way
backwards incompatible)

SELECT[1]   - select exactly one row, anything else raises error
SELECT[0:1]   - select zero or one rows, anything else raises error
SELECT[1:] - select one or more rows

It has zero verbosity and I don't like
 

plain SELECT is equivalent to SELECT[0:]

same syntax could be used for enforcing sane affected row counts
for INSERT and DELETE


A more SQL-ish way of doing the same could probably be called COMMAND
CONSTRAINTS
and look something like this

SELECT
...
CHECK (ROWCOUNT BETWEEN 0 AND 1);

It is very near to my proposed ASSERT

There is disadvantage of enhancing SQL syntax, because you have to handle ugly in PLpgSQL parser or you have to push it to SQL parser.

SELECT ...; ASSERT CHECK ROWCOUNT BETWEEN 0 AND 1 .. solve it.

There is only one difference - ";" and we don't need to modify SQL and we have total general solution


I don't like a design where is necessary to read documentation to language with all small details first.
 



2. Substitute for EXECUTE with string manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------

using backticks `` for value/command substitution in SQL as an alternative
to EXECUTE string

Again it should be backwards compatible as , as currently `` are not
allowed inside pl/pgsql functions

Sample 1:

ALTER USER `current_user` PASSWORD newpassword;

would be expanded to

EXECUTE 'ALTER USER ' || current_user ||
                ' PASSWORD = $1' USING newpassword;

Sample2:

SELECT * FROM `tablename` WHERE "`idcolumn`" = idvalue;

this could be expanded to

EXECUTE 'SELECT * FROM ' || tablename ||
                ' WHERE quote_ident(idcolumn) = $1' USING idvalue;

Notice that the use of "" around `` forced use of quote_ident()

I am sorry - it is less readable than "format" function, and I afraid so there is mental collision with MySQL wide used syntax.

Mainly - it is not natural solution that any beginner can do without reading documentation. It is only shortcut, but not clear.
 


3. A way to tell pl/pggsql not to cache plans fro normal queries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could be done using a #pragma or special /* NOPLANCACHE */
comment as suggested by Pavel


In my experience - these special use cases can be wrapped well by function. So we can use #option probably well

 
Or we could expand the [] descriptor from 1. to allow more options

OR we could do it in SQL-ish way using like this:

SELECT
...
USING FRESH PLAN;

Regards

Pavel
 


Best Regards

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: missing tab-completion for relation options
Следующее
От: Jeevan Chalke
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: proposal: ignore null fields in not relation type composite type based constructors