Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRASzjzYFUq-9kNzmotrjWJ1hVP+FncH-iD9cHtP6DVhVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
čt 6. 12. 2018 v 18:27 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> napsal:
čt 6. 12. 2018 v 18:17 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> napsal:On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:13 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> My idea about plpgsql PRAGMA is very close to PL/SQL or Ada PRAGMA. This is not runtime statement - the information from this command will be assigned to related object - function, block, command at parser time.
That's sensible, but the syntax you were proposing didn't look like it
was related to a specific statement. I was objecting to the idea that
PRAGMA whatever; should be construed as an annotation of,
specifically, the following statement.please, can you propose, some what you like?For my purpose I can imagine PRAGMA on function level with same syntax like PL/SQL - I need to push somewhere some information that I can use for plpgsql_check to protect users against false alarms. The locality in this moment is not too important for me. But I prefer solution that doesn't looks too strange, and is possible just with change plpgsql parser.
I looked to some documentation - and for example - the PL/SQL PRAGMA inline looks very similar to what I propose.
For me good enough is block level pragma used in DECLARE section
DECLARE
pragma plpgsql_check(OFF);
BEGIN
.. this part will not be checked ..
END;
The syntax will be prepared for future PL/SQL pragmas like AUTONOMOUS_TRANSACTION, ..
Regards
Pavel
RegardsPavel
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: