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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Westermann (DWE)
Тема Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures
Дата
Msg-id GV0P278MB048338169F3080AE6686AFF6D2729@GV0P278MB0483.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures
Список pgsql-hackers
>> 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.

Thanks for your inputs. Attached a proposal which updates the description.

Regards
Daniel
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bharath Rupireddy
Дата:
Сообщение: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals