On Tue, 2025-07-01 at 07:10 -0400, Edward J. Sabol wrote: > On Jul 1, 2025, at 5:37 AM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Moreover, PostgreSQL cannot check dependencies, since the function was defined using > > the "old" style for SQL functions, where the function body is just a string. > > If they had used the standard conforming new style, PostgreSQL would try to trach > > dependencies. Not sure if that would have been enough to avoid the problem, > > but clearly better. > > Just for my edification, how would one create that PostGIS function using the > "standard-conforming new style"? CREATE FUNCTION public.st_transform(geom geometry, from_proj text, to_srid integer) RETURNS geometry IMMUTABLE PARALLEL SAFE STRICT COST 5000 BEGIN ATOMIC SELECT public.postgis_transform_geometry($1, $2, proj4text, $3) FROM public.spatial_ref_sys WHERE srid=$3; END; (The IMMUTABLE would still be a lie, though.) > *All* of the examples in PostgeSQL's current documentation are the "old" (string) > style at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/xfunc-sql.html. > > The only example of the new style in the PostgreSQL documentation that I could > find is the very trivial second example at > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createfunction.html. The other examples > on that web page are all the old style. > > If the new style is better, perhaps someone should update the PostgreSQL > documentation to use it more than just once. More complicated examples of > "new style" SQL functions are needed, I feel. That is true; we could do more there. Yours, Laurenz Albe
