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: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, 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: 2025-05-21T06:36:45Z
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.

st 21. 5. 2025 v 8:27 odesílatel Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
napsal:

> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 17:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > f 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?
>
> No, you are free to complain, just as Pavel is free to keep his patch
> set from rotting.  What I am trying to say is that rejecting the patch
> set is the most effective way to complain.
>
> The current state is that Pavel keeps the patch set alive, and occasionally
> people review it or parts of it.  But no committer is accepting or
> rejecting
> it, so the patch set remains in limbo.  This annoys you, and it is
> certainly
> not a happy experience for the author.  Rejection is not nice, but at least
> it would make it easier for Pavel to move on and spend his energy
> elsewhere.
>

Rejection is not nice, but it can be, and if it will be, I hope, there will
be more cleaner
status if we want this feature or not, and if possibly want this feature,
what we expect.

This feature can be designed differently in respect to some priorities. But
without known
priorities, any patch, proposal can end in the same state.

Regards

Pavel



>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>