Re: Re: proposal: schema variables

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, 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: 2025-01-20T20:15:43Z

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 →

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

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:47:28PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I think we passed the Desirability criteria with the feedback on
this thread, but it is now a question of whether the code complexity
justifies the feature.  I saw a few people saying they want _some_ parts
of the patch, which opens the suggestion that even people who want the
patch are seeing parts of the patch that are too much.  I have seen this
patch circling around, and I think it needs a step a back for analysis.

> 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.

Yes, the meeting review is a very good idea.

> 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.

I think we have to identify a committer who is willing to consider
application of this patch before the patch can move forward.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.