Re: proposal: schema variables

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

To: DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Cc: "phb07@apra.asso.fr" <phb07@apra.asso.fr>

Date: 2020-03-20T07:18:45Z

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 →

Move WAL sequence code into its own file
- a87987cafca6 19 (unreleased) cited
Add ExplainState argument to pg_plan_query() and planner().
- c83ac02ec730 19 (unreleased) cited
Don't include access/htup_details.h in executor/tuptable.h
- 1a8b5b11e48a 19 (unreleased) cited
Refactor to avoid code duplication in transformPLAssignStmt.
- b0fb2c6aa5a4 19 (unreleased) cited
Avoid including commands/dbcommands.h in so many places
- 325fc0ab14d1 19 (unreleased) cited
Restrict psql meta-commands in plain-text dumps.
- 71ea0d679543 19 (unreleased) cited
Split func.sgml into more manageable pieces
- 4e23c9ef65ac 19 (unreleased) cited
Fix squashing algorithm for query texts
- 0f65f3eec478 18.0 cited
EXPLAIN: Always use two fractional digits for row counts.
- 95dbd827f2ed 18.0 cited
Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.
- a654af21ae52 18.0 cited
plpgsql: pure parser and reentrant scanner
- 7b27f5fd36cb 18.0 cited
Add some sanity checks in executor for query ID reporting
- 24f520594809 18.0 cited
Fix misleading error message context
- 4af123ad45bd 18.0 cited
Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.
- 14dd0f27d7cd 17.0 cited

Attachments

change.diff (text/x-patch) patch
schema-variables-20200320.patch.gz (application/gzip) patch

čt 19. 3. 2020 v 10:43 odesílatel DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr> napsal:

> Hello
>
>
>
> I played around with the ALTER VARIABLE statement to make sure it’s OK and
> it seems fine to me.
>
>
>
> Another last thing before commiting.
>
>
>
> I agree with Thomas Vondra, that this part might/should be simplified :
>
>
>
> [ { ON COMMIT DROP | ON { TRANSACTIONAL | TRANSACTION } END RESET } ]
>
>
>
> I would only allow “ON TRANSACTION END RESET”.
>
> I think we don’t need both here.
>
> Philippe Beaudoin was indeed talking about the TRANSACTIONAL keyword, but
> that would have make sense (and I think that’s what he meant) , if you
> could do something like “CREATE [NON] TRANSACTIONAL VARIABLE …”.
>
> But here I don’t think that the ON TRANSACTIONAL END RESET has any sense
> in English, and it only complicates the syntax.
>
>
>
> Maybe Thomas Vondra (if it’s him) would be more inclined to commit the
> patch if it has this more simple syntax has he requested.
>
>
>
> What do you think ?
>

I removed TRANSACTIONAL from this clause, see attachement change.diff

Updated patch attached.

I hope it would be the last touch, making it fully ready for a commiter.
>

Thank you very much for review and testing

Pavel

>