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>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-07-20T19:48:43Z
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

pá 19. 7. 2024 v 13:41 odesílatel Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
napsal:

> On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:58 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I am sending a strongly updated patch for schema variables.
> >
> > I rewrote an execution of a LET statement. In the previous
> implementation I hacked
> > STMT_SELECT. Now, I introduced a new statement STMT_LET, and I
> implemented a new
> > executor node SetVariable. Now I think this implementation is much
> cleaner.
> > Implementation with own executor node reduces necessary work on PL side
> - and allows
> > the LET statement to be prepared - what is important from a security
> view.
> >
> > I'll try to write a second implementation based on a cleaner
> implementation like
> > utility command too. I expect so this version will be more simple, but
> utility
> > commands cannot be prepared, and probably, there should be special
> support for
> > any PL. I hope a cleaner implementation can help to move this patch.
> >
> > We can choose one variant in the next step and this variant can be
> finalized.
> >
> > Notes, comments?
>
> Thank you!
>
> I tried to give the patch a spin, but it doesn't apply any more,
> and there are too many conflicts for me to fix manually.
>
>
>
just fresh rebase

I'll reply to your comments tomorrow.

 Regards

Pavel