Horton

Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-03-07T08:32:25Z
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 →

  1. Move WAL sequence code into its own file

  2. Add ExplainState argument to pg_plan_query() and planner().

  3. Don't include access/htup_details.h in executor/tuptable.h

  4. Refactor to avoid code duplication in transformPLAssignStmt.

  5. Avoid including commands/dbcommands.h in so many places

  6. Restrict psql meta-commands in plain-text dumps.

  7. Split func.sgml into more manageable pieces

  8. Fix squashing algorithm for query texts

  9. EXPLAIN: Always use two fractional digits for row counts.

  10. Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.

  11. plpgsql: pure parser and reentrant scanner

  12. Add some sanity checks in executor for query ID reporting

  13. Fix misleading error message context

  14. Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.

čt 7. 3. 2019 v 9:10 odesílatel Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> napsal:

>
> Hello David,
>
> > This patch hasn't receive any review in a while and I'm not sure if
> that's
> > because nobody is interested or the reviewers think it does not need any
> more
> > review.
> >
> > It seems to me that this patch as implemented does not quite satisfy any
> one.
> >
> > I think we need to hear something from the reviewers soon or I'll push
> this
> > patch to PG13 as Andres recommends [1].
>
> I have discussed the feature extensively with Pavel on the initial thread.
>
> My strong opinion based on the underlying use case is that it that such
> session variables should be transactional by default, and Pavel strong
> opinion is that they should not, to be closer to Oracle comparable
> feature.
>
> According to the documentation, the current implementation does provide a
> transactional feature. However, it is not the default behavior, so I'm in
> disagreement on a key feature, although I do really appreciate that Pavel
> implemented the transactional behavior.
>
> Otherwise, ISTM that they could be named "SESSION VARIABLE" because the
> variable only exists in memory, in a session, and we could thing of adding
> other kind of variables later on.
>
> I do intend to review it in depth when it is transactional by default.
>

I am sorry. I cannot to support this request. Variables are not
transactional. My opinion is strong in this part.

I would not to repeat this discussion from start. I am sorry.

Regards

Pavel


> Anyway, the patch is non trivial and very large, so targetting v12 now is
> indeed out of reach.
>
> --
> Fabien.
>
>