Horton

Re: Re: proposal: schema variables

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, 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: 2025-01-20T08:26:11Z
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.

Hi

po 20. 1. 2025 v 8:56 odesílatel Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
napsal:

> On 2025-Jan-17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Is this really something we are considering applying, since it has been
> > around for years?  I am unclear on that and we had better know if we are
> > going to continue reviewing this.
>
> The fact that the patch has been around for years doesn't automatically
> mean it's a bad idea.
>
> I have proposed that we discuss this patch at fosdem developer's meeting
> next month, precisely to seek consensus on whether this patch is
> something we want or not.  My view is that this is a feature that has
> been requested by users for years, so IMO we want this or something
> similar.
>
> I wonder if the reason that committers stay away from it is that
> reviewing it fully (and thus taking responsibility for it) seems such a
> daunting task.  I might be wrong, but I think this may be the largest
> patch since FTS.
>

This patch is huge, but I think it is not comparable with parallel
processing support or with replication support.

It doesn't introduce new processes or new data structures or does important
changes in planner, and I think so almost all code is very simple.

In early versions of this patch, there was a complex part to ensure
validity of content in memory. But it was fully removed and replaced
just by comparing with create_lsn.

Regards

Pavel


> --
> Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —
> https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
> Tom: There seems to be something broken here.
> Teodor: I'm in sackcloth and ashes...  Fixed.
>
> http://postgr.es/m/482D1632.8010507@sigaev.ru
>