Horton

Re: proposal: schema variables

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: 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: 2024-09-03T11:41:31Z
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.

Attachments

Hi

po 2. 9. 2024 v 16:00 odesílatel Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
napsal:

> On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 19:33 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > > > >   > +   /*
> > > > > >   > +    * Although svar is freshly validated in this point, the
> svar->is_valid can
> > > > > >   > +    * be false, due possible accepting invalidation message
> inside domain
> > > > > >   > +    * check. Now, the validation is done after lock, that
> can also accept
> > > > > >   > +    * invalidation message, so validation should be
> trustful.
> > > > > >   > +    *
> > > > > >   > +    * For now, we don't need to repeat validation. Only
> svar should be valid
> > > > > >   > +    * pointer.
> > > > > >   > +    */
> > > > >
> > > > > This comment is related to assertions. Before I had there
> `Assert(svar->is_valid)`,
> > > > > because I expected it. But it was not always true. And although it
> is true,
> > > > > we don't need to validate a variable, because at this moment, the
> variable
> > > > > should be locked, and then we can return content safely.
> > > >
> > > > I guess my main problem is the word "trustful".  I don't recognize
> that word.
> > > > Perhaps you can reword the comment along the lines of your above
> explanation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll try to change it
> >
> > is this better
> >
> > <-->/*
> > <--> * Although svar is freshly validated in this point, the
> svar->is_valid can
> > <--> * be false, due possible accepting invalidation message inside
> domain
> > <--> * check. But now, the variable, and all dependencies are locked, so
> we
> > <--> * don't need to repeat validation.
> > <--> */
>
> Much better.
>
> Here is an improved version:
>
>   Although "svar" is freshly validated in this point, svar->is_valid can
>   be false, if an invalidation message ws processed during the domain
> check.
>   But the variable and all its dependencies are locked now, so we don't
> need
>   to repeat the validation.
>
>

merged

thank you

Regards

Pavel


> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>