Horton

Re: proposal: schema variables

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, 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: 2025-05-21T05:15:27Z
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.

út 20. 5. 2025 v 23:07 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> napsal:

> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 16:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Well, we do have a right, e.g., we would not allow someone to
> repeatedly
> > > post patches for a Postgres extension we don't manage, or the jdbc
> > > driver.  I also don't think we would allow someone to continue posting
> > > patches for a feature we have decided to reject, and I think we have
> > > decided to reject the patch in in its current form.  I think we might
> > > accept a trimmed-down version, but I don't see the patch moving in that
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > Now, of course, if I am the only one who feels this way, I can suppress
> > > these emails on my end.
> >
> > In my opinion, this patch set is adding something that would be valuable
> to
> > have in core.
> >
> > If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper
> > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about
> the
> > insistence of the author.
>
> Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected
> the patch set?  If we officially reject it, the patch author would no
> longer post it?
>

I'll respect committers. I really don't want to worry people in the
community. It is not my way, and I am sorry.

I think this is an important feature - for some group of developers, and
then I push my energy and time for this.
On the other hand, I accept that there is a lot of work that is important
for a wider group of users. So it is. Unfortunately,
without parser's hooks this feature cannot be implemented as an extension.
But parser's hooks was proposed,
and rejected, so there is no other possibility, how to do it. More -
implementation of this feature as an extension is not
best way.

regards

Pavel








>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
>   EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com
>
>   Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
>