Re: Re: proposal: schema variables

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-01-20T20:40:34Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance

Commits

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

Move WAL sequence code into its own file
- a87987cafca6 19 (unreleased) cited
Add ExplainState argument to pg_plan_query() and planner().
- c83ac02ec730 19 (unreleased) cited
Don't include access/htup_details.h in executor/tuptable.h
- 1a8b5b11e48a 19 (unreleased) cited
Refactor to avoid code duplication in transformPLAssignStmt.
- b0fb2c6aa5a4 19 (unreleased) cited
Avoid including commands/dbcommands.h in so many places
- 325fc0ab14d1 19 (unreleased) cited
Restrict psql meta-commands in plain-text dumps.
- 71ea0d679543 19 (unreleased) cited
Split func.sgml into more manageable pieces
- 4e23c9ef65ac 19 (unreleased) cited
Fix squashing algorithm for query texts
- 0f65f3eec478 18.0 cited
EXPLAIN: Always use two fractional digits for row counts.
- 95dbd827f2ed 18.0 cited
Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.
- a654af21ae52 18.0 cited
plpgsql: pure parser and reentrant scanner
- 7b27f5fd36cb 18.0 cited
Add some sanity checks in executor for query ID reporting
- 24f520594809 18.0 cited
Fix misleading error message context
- 4af123ad45bd 18.0 cited
Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.
- 14dd0f27d7cd 17.0 cited

On Mon, 2025-01-20 at 15:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, I think we passed the Desirability criteria with the feedback on
> this thread, but it is now a question of whether the code complexity
> justifies the feature.  I saw a few people saying they want _some_ parts
> of the patch, which opens the suggestion that even people who want the
> patch are seeing parts of the patch that are too much.  I have seen this
> patch circling around, and I think it needs a step a back for analysis.

I'd say that patches 1 to 6 from the patch set are essential.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe