Re: proposal: schema variables
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Commits
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
Attachments
- schema-variables-20200320-2.patch.gz (application/gzip) patch
pá 20. 3. 2020 v 8:18 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
napsal:
>
>
> čt 19. 3. 2020 v 10:43 odesílatel DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>
> napsal:
>
>> Hello
>>
>>
>>
>> I played around with the ALTER VARIABLE statement to make sure it’s OK
>> and it seems fine to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another last thing before commiting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Thomas Vondra, that this part might/should be simplified :
>>
>>
>>
>> [ { ON COMMIT DROP | ON { TRANSACTIONAL | TRANSACTION } END RESET } ]
>>
>>
>>
>> I would only allow “ON TRANSACTION END RESET”.
>>
>> I think we don’t need both here.
>>
>> Philippe Beaudoin was indeed talking about the TRANSACTIONAL keyword, but
>> that would have make sense (and I think that’s what he meant) , if you
>> could do something like “CREATE [NON] TRANSACTIONAL VARIABLE …”.
>>
>> But here I don’t think that the ON TRANSACTIONAL END RESET has any sense
>> in English, and it only complicates the syntax.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe Thomas Vondra (if it’s him) would be more inclined to commit the
>> patch if it has this more simple syntax has he requested.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>
> I removed TRANSACTIONAL from this clause, see attachement change.diff
>
> Updated patch attached.
>
> I hope it would be the last touch, making it fully ready for a commiter.
>>
>
> Thank you very much for review and testing
>
documentation fix
> Pavel
>
>>