MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAFj8pRC+hPCc2X88xC=pTJoqmVPApDsageZOMyqaxi5788WxHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRDJ9cq00VYSHxs6LsoHNWjhYXyWWBtV6UgeWwhs0AHa9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRBPXTcw_3fpKtgVthV2+9rZGhxitZ40DnAwCrK601TZZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ndtfl4tsnpkb7m7hwvnmlpsascpgd3a7xvjmjhtxffsbrgygtm@4du6zsmnnwq5>
 <CAFj8pRAu4XvNCGu1751t=2YEqLqTjDA3FavMExm2S0KYQq=DdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRAsEoeZv0HEnA8CKgFKDSQ-wYw18Os1vdksWCV7ez2bVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3chredgnjcmccym2kczawfih226b4ac6co7p6z4jeofevrcosi@mrsxkx2x2c65>
 <CAFj8pRBoWPDTOwn5FmMzc+1qiopw+N04U26nviOdF61fs8A2wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <stckyvkl4yyzvgjsaawojs3xikke7mmds5bhv7l7qerclywywk@h4v4n43xm6u2>
 <CAFj8pRB_E1GM_YGT-ti4bXka6mhLdAAFeTe+BHgHFYC+qb-76g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20241120201313.t4wbhld4ktgielaf@erthalion.local>
In-Reply-To: <20241120201313.t4wbhld4ktgielaf@erthalion.local>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:07:09 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAFj8pRDDTfQdE9kZjRvLSAVtd1jfEKFoUG+U9XQEFjhM4yz9EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c233d2062764680b"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRDDTfQdE9kZjRvLSAVtd1jfEKFoUG%2BU9XQEFjhM4yz9EA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000c233d2062764680b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

st 20. 11. 2024 v 21:14 odes=C3=ADlatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.co=
m>
napsal:

> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 08:14:01PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I wrote POC of VARIABLE(varname) syntax support
>
> Thanks, the results look good. I'm still opposed the idea of having a
> warning, and think it has to be an error -- but it's my subjective
> opinion. Lets see if there are more votes on that topic.
>

The error breaks the possibility to use variables (session variables) like
Oracle's package variables easily. It increases effort for transformation
or porting because you should identify variables inside queries and you
should wrap it to fence.  On the other hand, extensions that can read a
query after transformation can easily detect unwrapped variables and they
can raise an error. It can be very easy to implement this check to
plpgsql_check for example or like plpgsql.extra_check.

In my ideal world, the shadowing warning should be enabled by default, and
an unfencing warning disabled by default. But I have not a problem with
activating both warnings by default. I think warnings  are enough, because
if there is some risk then a shadowing warning is activated. And my
experience is more positive about warnings, people read it.

Regards

Pavel

--000000000000c233d2062764680b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">st 20. 11. 2024 v=C2=A021:14 odes=C3=
=ADlatel Dmitry Dolgov &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:9erthalion6@gmail.com">9erthal=
ion6@gmail.com</a>&gt; napsal:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pad=
ding-left:1ex">&gt; On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 08:14:01PM +0100, Pavel Stehule=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; Hi<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I wrote POC of VARIABLE(varname) syntax support<br>
<br>
Thanks, the results look good. I&#39;m still opposed the idea of having a<b=
r>
warning, and think it has to be an error -- but it&#39;s my subjective<br>
opinion. Lets see if there are more votes on that topic.<br></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>The error breaks the possibility to use variables (sessio=
n variables) like Oracle&#39;s package variables easily. It increases effor=
t for transformation or porting because you should identify variables insid=
e queries and you should wrap it to fence.=C2=A0 On the other hand, extensi=
ons that can read a query after transformation can easily detect unwrapped =
variables and they can raise an error. It can be very easy to implement thi=
s check to plpgsql_check for example or like plpgsql.extra_check. <br></div=
><div><br></div><div>In my ideal world, the shadowing warning should be ena=
bled by default, and an unfencing warning disabled by default. But I have n=
ot a problem with activating both warnings by default. I think warnings=C2=
=A0 are enough, because if there is some risk then a shadowing warning is a=
ctivated. And my experience is more positive about warnings, people read it=
.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Pavel<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>

--000000000000c233d2062764680b--