Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Shinderuk <s.shinderuk@postgrespro.ru>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com, er@xs4all.nl,
joel@compiler.org, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-03-23T15:33:13Z
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 →
-
Allow underscores in integer and numeric constants.
- faff8f8e47f1 16.0 cited
-
Remove special outfuncs/readfuncs handling of RangeVar.catalogname.
- 3cece34be842 16.0 cited
-
Remove extra space from dumped ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES.
- 2af33369e794 16.0 cited
-
Create FKs properly when attaching table as partition
- b0284bfb1db5 16.0 cited
-
psql: improve tab-complete's handling of variant SQL names.
- 02b8048ba5dc 15.0 cited
On 17.03.23 21:50, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > rebase + fix-update pg_dump tests > > Regards > > Pavel > I have spent several hours studying the code and the past discussions. The problem I see in general is that everyone who reviews and tests the patches finds more problems, behavioral, weird internal errors, crashes. These are then immediately fixed, and the cycle starts again. I don't have the sense that this process has arrived at a steady state yet. The other issue is that by its nature this patch adds a lot of code in a lot of places. Large patches are more likely to be successful if they add a lot of code in one place or smaller amounts of code in a lot of places. But this patch does both and it's just overwhelming. There is so much new internal functionality and terminology. Variables can be created, registered, initialized, stored, copied, prepared, set, freed, removed, released, synced, dropped, and more. I don't know if anyone has actually reviewed all that in detail. Has any effort been made to make this simpler, smaller, reduce scope, refactoring, find commonalities with other features, try to manage the complexity somehow? I'm not making a comment on the details of the functionality itself. I just think on the coding level it's not gotten to a satisfying situation yet.