Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> The implementation as I see it would create function in pg_temp
>> namespace, call it and then drop it. Any other implementation would
>> imho mean rewriting procedure language api.
> That's really ugly. It'll cause catalog bloat with every execution.
> I think it would be acceptable to have a new column in pg_language that
> pointed to an anonymous block execute function. Languages that do not
> define this function cannot use this new feature.
+1. The other way would also (presumably) mean invoking the language's
validate procedure, which might well be redundant and in any case would
probably not have exactly the error-reporting behavior one would want.
I think it's better if the language knows it's dealing with an anonymous
block. You could even imagine the language relaxing its rules a bit,
for instance not requiring an outer BEGIN/END in plpgsql.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
