From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SQL-standard function body
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmoah=cK3QCCXkKcd89SjGhza9PibOWepEC=Oo8GB_V9DDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1c11f1eb-f00c-43b7-799d-2d44132c02d7@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CA+TgmoZ-FXU0iyevFETN0sGYw0RKTSCFxKONGE+2nVJEM5_8OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <493812.1593541480@sss.pgh.pa.us> <494838.1593543098@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoah=cK3QCCXkKcd89SjGhza9PibOWepEC=Oo8GB_V9DDw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:36:42 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <582466.1593612850.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 10:14:10 -0400
Message-ID: <582467.1593612850@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> In my experience, there's certainly demand for some kind of mode where
> plpgsql functions get checked at function definition time, rather than
> at execution time.

Yeah, absolutely agreed.  But I'm afraid this proposal takes us too
far in the other direction: with this, you *must* have a 100% parseable
and semantically valid function body, every time all the time.

So far as plpgsql is concerned, I could see extending the validator
to run parse analysis (not just raw parsing) on all SQL statements in
the body.  This wouldn't happen of course with check_function_bodies off,
so it wouldn't affect dump/reload.  But likely there would still be
demand for more fine-grained control over it ... or maybe it could
stop doing analysis as soon as it finds a DDL command?

			regards, tom lane