2018-08-08 0:02 GMT+02:00 Marcelo Lacerda <marceloslace...@gmail.com>:
> That's a whole different nightmare that I'm expecting. > > > "Yep I double-checked all my functions to see if any would break if I > change this field mytable.a into 2 fields mytable.a1 and mytable.a2 and > everything is ok." > > *1 month later* > > "Why is this error log for this application that I wrote one year ago so > big? I haven't changed anything!" > > Error table mytable has no column a > Error table mytable has no column a > Error table mytable has no column a > ... > > It's frustrating that the references that a function make to the tables > and fields it access aren't taken in account for the validation of whether > a change to the structure of the database breaks the APIs that the database > exposes. > This cannot be done due possible dynamic SQL. And this issue solve plpgsql_check really well. Regards Pavel > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > >> > Marcelo Lacerda <marceloslace...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > I was trying to get postgres to warn me that I'm referencing a table >> that >> > > it doesn't exists inside a function so I was told on the IRC to check >> the >> > > setting "check_function_bodies", however when I use it in a plpgsql >> > > function it doesn't actually check if the tables in the body exist. >> Is this >> > > the correct behavior? >> > >> > Yes. It's supposed to be a syntax check, not a check that the function >> > would work when executed. (Depending on the particular PL you're using, >> > which you didn't mention, it might be a pretty weak syntax check too.) >> > >> > An example of why a thorough check would be inadvisable is that a >> trigger >> > function might contain references to OLD and NEW that are in code paths >> > protected by checks on the trigger event type. That could be perfectly >> > OK, but a static check couldn't tell. >> > >> > I believe there are some external tools floating around that check >> things >> > more aggressively, and hence with a higher rate of false positives. >> >> The only valid use of this GUC that I can think of is to work around >> this problem; >> postgres=# create or replace function f() returns void as >> $$ >> create temp table x(id int); >> delete from x; >> $$ language sql; >> ERROR: relation "x" does not exist >> >> ...I've since given up on writing plain sql functions except for >> inline cases though so I don't use it anymore. Static resolution of >> tables is not very useful since the state of the database as the time >> of function creation is different than what it might be when the >> function is run (as opposed to compiled languages obviously). >> >> merlin >> >
