Horton

Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-02-03T18:18:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow extension functions to participate in in-place updates.

  2. Implement new optimization rule for updates of expanded variables.

  3. Detect whether plpgsql assignment targets are "local" variables.

  4. Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.

  5. Refactor pl_funcs.c to provide a usage-independent tree walker.

  6. Generalize plpgsql's heuristic for importing expanded objects.

Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> writes:
>> On 3 Feb 2025, at 22:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not wedded to that name; do you have a better idea?

> I'd propose something like attached. But feel free to ignore my suggestion: I do not understand context of these structure members.

Hmm, you're suggesting naming those field members after PL/pgSQL's
specific use of them.  But the intent was that they are generic
workspace for anything that provides a EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK
callback --- that is, the "param" in the field name refers to the
fact that this is an expression step for some kind of Param, and
not to what PL/pgSQL happens to do with the field.

Admittedly this is all moot unless some other extension starts
using EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK, and I didn't find any evidence of that
using Debian Code Search.  But I don't want to think of
EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK as being specifically tied to PL/pgSQL.

			regards, tom lane