| 441 |
Incorrect reference to a system-defined function in the routine body |
Find user-defined routines that possibly use incorrect name of a system-defined function (currenttimestamp (correct is current_timestamp), currentdate (correct is current_date), currenttime (correct is current_time), local_time (correct is localtime), local_timestamp (correct is localtimestamp),localdate (there is no such function),local_date (there is no such function), sessionuser (correct is session_user), ucase (correct is upper), lcase (correct is lower)). The problem can arise only if the routine uses dynamic SQL. In case of static SQL the DBMS checks the SQL statemen at the creation time and finds out that for instance, SELECT Count(*) AS cnt FROM Emp WHERE hiredate<=currentdate; is incorrect statement because currentdate is not a function name and there is no column currentdate in the table Emp. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 442 |
Incorrect specification of logical or in regular expressions |
Find the use of regular expressions where logical or is incorrectly specified, i.e., (| or |). |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 443 |
Incorrect suffix of a constraint name or an index name |
If the name of an object has the suffix that refers to the type of the object (for instance, primary key constraint or foreign key constraint), then you should use references to the correct object type. Find suffixes of constraint names and index names that incorrectly refer to the type of the object. For instance, incorrect would be to use _chk as the suffix of an index name or _pk as the suffix of a check constraint name. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 444 |
Incorrect use of non-deterministic functions in CHECK constraints |
Do not create a constraint in case of which data that satisfied a constraint c at the registration time suddenly does not satisfy it any more as the time goes by. Find all the check constraints that use non-deterministic functions (now, current_timestamp, localtimestamp, current_date, current_time) in a way that makes this situation possible. Fort instance, localtimestamp(0)>end_date is an example of such constraint. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA only |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 445 |
Index FILLFACTOR is not default |
This query generates a list of all indexes with an explicitly configured, non-default FILLFACTOR for the purpose of a performance audit. The query is aware of the different default FILLFACTOR values associated with various index access methods (e.g., 90 for B-tree, 100 for others like GiST/GIN). This allows administrators to quickly identify and review all instances of customized index storage parameters to assess if these non-standard configurations are justified and still effective. |
General |
system catalog base tables only |
2025-11-10 09:17 |
MIT License |
View |
| 446 |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA is missing |
Make sure that you do not drop INFORMATION_SCHEMA schema. In this case most of the design checking queries will not work. This schema automatically exists in all databases. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 447 |
Input parameters that names do not follow the convention to start with _ or p_ |
For the sake of making code better understandable follow naming conventions. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 448 |
Input parameters with the same name have different types |
This query analyzes the semantic consistency of routine signatures by identifying named input parameters that share an identical identifier but possess divergent data types across different routines. While this pattern is a prerequisite for valid routine overloading (polymorphism), it can also indicate a lack of standardization in the data dictionary. For example, using the parameter name status to denote an INTEGER in one context and TEXT in another creates ambiguity regarding the parameter's expected domain. The query results should be audited to distinguish intentional overloading from naming inconsistencies. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-12-15 11:34 |
MIT License |
View |
| 449 |
Installed extensions |
Try to use as much the possibilities of the DBMS as possible. On the other hand, do not install extensions that are not needed in order not to overcomplicate the database. |
General |
system catalog base tables only |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 450 |
Insufficient number of user-defined base tables |
This query performs a basic structural assessment of the database schema by counting the number of user-defined base tables. It verifies whether the data model meets a minimum complexity threshold, requiring the existence of at least 7 distinct base tables. This metric serves as a proxy for the scope and depth of the implemented domain model. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA only |
2025-11-30 09:30 |
MIT License |
View |
| 451 |
Insufficient number of user-defined domains |
This query assesses the utilization of user-defined domains within the database schema. It verifies a specific structural requirement: the database must contain at least one user-defined domain that is referenced by at least two distinct non-foreign key columns in base tables. This metric serves as an indicator of proper domain reuse and data type standardization. The query validates whether the schema design effectively leverages domains to enforce consistent data definitions across multiple attributes. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-20 11:47 |
MIT License |
View |
| 452 |
Insufficient number of user-defined foreign tables |
This query assesses the utilization of PostgreSQL's Foreign Data Wrapper (FDW) capabilities. It verifies the existence of at least 2 user-defined foreign tables within the database schema. This requirement ensures that the implemented solution demonstrates the ability to integrate and query data from external sources, extending the data model beyond local storage. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA only |
2025-11-30 09:31 |
MIT License |
View |
| 453 |
Insufficient number of user-defined non-trigger routines |
This query performs a quantity-based assessment of the database's procedural logic. It verifies whether the schema meets a minimum complexity requirement by counting the number of user-defined, non-trigger routines (functions and procedures). The check passes only if the count is equal to or greater than the threshold of 4. This metric is used to ensure a baseline level of backend logic implementation. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-30 08:47 |
MIT License |
View |
| 454 |
Insufficient number of user-defined non-trigger SQL routines with SQL-standard routine body |
This query assesses the database's adherence to modern SQL standards regarding procedural code. It verifies whether the schema contains a minimum of 3 user-defined, non-trigger routines that are specifically written in the SQL language and utilize a SQL-standard body (defined using BEGIN ATOMIC ... END). This excludes routines written in PL/pgSQL or those using the legacy string-literal body definition. The metric ensures a baseline adoption of the standardized, portable syntax for SQL routines introduced in newer PostgreSQL versions. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-30 09:22 |
MIT License |
View |
| 455 |
Insufficient number of user-defined triggers+rules |
This query assesses the extent of active logic implementation within the database schema. It verifies that there are at least 3 user-defined triggers or rewrite rules present in the database. These objects represent automated tasks that for example enforce complex integrity constraints. Meeting this threshold indicates a baseline competency in utilizing PostgreSQL's event-driven capabilities. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-30 09:36 |
MIT License |
View |
| 456 |
Insufficient number of user-defined triggers+rules (based on number of tasks) |
This query assesses the extent of active logic implementation within the database schema. It verifies that there are user-defined triggers or rewrite rules present for at least 3 tasks. These objects represent automated tasks that for example enforce complex integrity constraints. Meeting this threshold indicates a baseline competency in utilizing PostgreSQL's event-driven capabilities. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-30 09:34 |
MIT License |
View |
| 457 |
Insufficient number of user-defined views |
This query assesses the use of abstraction layers within the database schema. It verifies that there are at least 4 user-defined views present. Views are essential for simplifying complex queries, restricting data access, and presenting specific data perspectives to applications. Meeting this threshold indicates a sufficient implementation of data abstraction and query encapsulation. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA only |
2025-11-30 09:38 |
MIT License |
View |
| 458 |
Insufficient routine privileges |
You must give rights to use routines to the users/roles that correspond to applications. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 459 |
Insufficient view privileges |
You must give privileges to use views to the users/roles that correspond to applications |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-07 10:11 |
MIT License |
View |
| 460 |
Intra-object inconsistency in string concatenation methods |
This query detects internal inconsistency within individual database objects (user-defined routines, views, materialized views). It flags objects that utilize both the standard concatenation operator (||) and variadic concatenation functions (concat() or concat_ws()) within the same definition body. Mixing null-unsafe operators (||) with null-safe functions (concat) in a single routine suggests a lack of coherent logic or an incomplete refactoring effort, potentially leading to confusing behavior regarding NULL handling. |
Problem detection |
INFORMATION_SCHEMA+system catalog base tables |
2025-11-27 12:27 |
MIT License |
View |