This adds support for writing CREATE FUNCTION and CREATE PROCEDURE
statements for language SQL with a function body that conforms to the
SQL standard and is portable to other implementations.
Instead of the PostgreSQL-specific AS $$ string literal $$ syntax,
this allows writing out the SQL statements making up the body
unquoted, either as a single statement:
CREATE FUNCTION add(a integer, b integer) RETURNS integer
LANGUAGE SQL
RETURN a + b;
or as a block
CREATE PROCEDURE insert_data(a integer, b integer)
LANGUAGE SQL
BEGIN ATOMIC
INSERT INTO tbl VALUES (a);
INSERT INTO tbl VALUES (b);
END;
The function body is parsed at function definition time and stored as
expression nodes in a new pg_proc column prosqlbody. So at run time,
no further parsing is required.
However, this form does not support polymorphic arguments, because
there is no more parse analysis done at call time.
Dependencies between the function and the objects it uses are fully
tracked.
A new RETURN statement is introduced. This can only be used inside
function bodies. Internally, it is treated much like a SELECT
statement.
psql needs some new intelligence to keep track of function body
boundaries so that it doesn't send off statements when it sees
semicolons that are inside a function body.
Tested-by: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Reviewed-by: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1c11f1eb-f00c-43b7-799d-2d44132c02d7@2ndquadrant.com
Several information schema views track dependencies between
functions/procedures and objects used by them. These had not been
implemented so far because PostgreSQL doesn't track objects used in a
function body. However, formally, these also show dependencies used
in parameter default expressions, which PostgreSQL does support and
track. So for the sake of completeness, we might as well add these.
If dependency tracking for function bodies is ever implemented, these
views will automatically work correctly.
Reviewed-by: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ac80fc74-e387-8950-9a31-2560778fc1e3%40enterprisedb.com
The basic tests that defined SQL functions didn't actually run the
functions to see if they worked. Add that, and also fix a minor
mistake in a function that was revealed by this. (This is not a
question of test coverage, since there are other places where SQL
functions are run, but it is a bit of a silly test design.)
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1c11f1eb-f00c-43b7-799d-2d44132c02d7@2ndquadrant.com
Now that the ordering of DROP messages ought to be stable everywhere,
we should not need these kluges of hiding DETAIL output just to avoid
unstable ordering. Hiding it's not great for test coverage, so
let's undo that where possible.
In a small number of places, it's necessary to leave it in, for
example because the output might include a variable pg_temp_nnn
schema name. I also left things alone in places where the details
would depend on other regression test scripts, e.g. plpython_drop.sql.
Perhaps buildfarm experience will show this to be a bad idea,
but if so I'd like to know why.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1h6eep-0001Mw-Vd@gemulon.postgresql.org
Part of the intent in commit fd1a421fe was to allow SQL functions that are
declared to return VOID to contain anything, including an unrelated final
SELECT, the same as SQL-language procedures can. However, the planner's
inlining logic didn't get that memo. Fix it, and add some regression tests
covering this area, since evidently we had none.
In passing, clean up some typos in comments in create_function_3.sql,
and get rid of its none-too-safe assumption that DROP CASCADE notice
output is immutably ordered.
Per report from Prabhat Sahu.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANEvxPqxAj6nNHVcaXxpTeEFPmh24Whu+23emgjiuKrhJSct0A@mail.gmail.com
The new column distinguishes normal functions, procedures, aggregates,
and window functions. This replaces the existing columns proisagg and
proiswindow, and replaces the convention that procedures are indicated
by prorettype == 0. Also change prorettype to be VOIDOID for procedures.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
In DDL commands referring to an existing function, allow omitting the
argument list if the function name is unique in its schema, per SQL
standard.
This uses the same logic that the regproc type uses for finding
functions by name only.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
The generic drop support already supported dropping multiple objects of
the same kind at once. But the previous representation
of function signatures across two grammar symbols and structure members
made this cumbersome to do for functions, so it was not supported. Now
that function signatures are represented by a single structure, it's
trivial to add this support. Same for aggregates and operators.
Reviewed-by: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To ensure that "make installcheck" can be used safely against an existing
installation, we need to be careful about what global object names
(database, role, and tablespace names) we use; otherwise we might
accidentally clobber important objects. There's been a weak consensus that
test databases should have names including "regression", and that test role
names should start with "regress_", but we didn't have any particular rule
about tablespace names; and neither of the other rules was followed with
any consistency either.
This commit moves us a long way towards having a hard-and-fast rule that
regression test databases must have names including "regression", and that
test role and tablespace names must start with "regress_". It's not
completely there because I did not touch some test cases in rolenames.sql
that test creation of special role names like "session_user". That will
require some rethinking of exactly what we want to test, whereas the intent
of this patch is just to hit all the cases in which the needed renamings
are cosmetic.
There is no enforcement mechanism in this patch either, but if we don't
add one we can expect that the tests will soon be violating the convention
again. Again, that's not such a cosmetic change and it will require
discussion. (But I did use a quick-hack enforcement patch to find these
cases.)
Discussion: <16638.1468620817@sss.pgh.pa.us>
The original location in create_function_3.sql didn't invite the close
structinity warranted for adding new leakproof functions. Add comments
to the test explaining that functions should only be added after
careful consideration and understanding what a leakproof function is.
Per complaint from Tom Lane after 5eebb8d954.
Use the unaligned/no rowcount output mode in a regression tests that
shows all built-in leakproof functions. Currently a new leakproof
function will often change the alignment of all existing functions,
making it hard to see the actual difference and creating unnecessary
patch conflicts.
Noticed while looking over a patch introducing new leakproof functions.
Reviewed-by: Ali Dar <ali.munir.dar@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Khandekar <amit.khandekar@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodolfo Campero <rodolfo.campero@anachronics.com>
We don't normally allow quals to be pushed down into a view created
with the security_barrier option, but functions without side effects
are an exception: they're OK. This allows much better performance in
common cases, such as when using an equality operator (that might
even be indexable).
There is an outstanding issue here with the CREATE FUNCTION / ALTER
FUNCTION syntax: there's no way to use ALTER FUNCTION to unset the
leakproof flag. But I'm committing this as-is so that it doesn't
have to be rebased again; we can fix up the grammar in a future
commit.
KaiGai Kohei, with some wordsmithing by me.
Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Andres Freund
Robert Haas