Jim,
Have you actually tried this, or is it just a theory? AFAIK, the function will work because only the schema name is changed.. So please provide On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/12/15 9:38 AM, Daniel Verite wrote:
"seriously flawed" is a bit of a stretch. Most sane developers would notThat's confusing the example with the problem it shows.
>have schema names of one letter.
>They usually name a schema something practical, which totally avoids your
>nit picky exception.
Another example could be:
if the source schema is "public" and the function body contains
GRANT SELECT on sometable to public;
then this statement would be wrongly altered by replace().
Well, the new version actually fixes that. But you could still trip this up, certainly in the functions. IE:
CREATE FUNCTION ...
SELECT old.field FROM old.old;
That will end up as
SELECT new.field FROM new.old
which won't work.
My objection is not about some corner case: it's the general
idea of patching the entire body of a function without a fully-fledged
parser that is dead on arrival.
ISTM that's also the biggest blocker for allowing extensions that refer to other schemas to be relocatable. It would be interesting if we had some way to handle this inside function bodies, perhaps via something equivalent to @extschema@.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.![]()
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
