Horton

Re: Re: proposal: schema variables

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-05-21T00:21:42Z
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.

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:28:31PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> This topic is difficult, because there is no common solution. SQL/PSM is
> almost dead. T-SQL (and MySQL) design is weak and cannot be used for
> security.
> Oracle's design is joined with just one environment. And although almost
> all widely used databases have supported session variables for decades, no
> one design
> is perfect. Proposed design is not perfect too (it introduces possible
> ambiguity) , but I think it can support most wanted use cases (can be
> enhanced in future),
> and it is consistent with Postgres. There are more ways to reduce risk of
> unwanted ambiguity to zero. But it increases the size of the patch.

One thing that I keep hearing about this feature is that this would be
really helpful for migration from Oracle to PostgreSQL, helping a lot
with rewrites of pl/pgsql functions.

There is one page on the wiki about private variables, dating back to
2016:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CREATE_PRIVATE_VARIABLE

Perhaps it would help to summarize a bit the pros and cons of existing
implementations to drive which implementation would be the most suited
on a wiki page?  The way standards are defined is by overwriting
existing standards, and we don't have one in the SQL specification.
It's hard to say if there will be one at some point, but if the main
SQL products around the world have one, it pretty much is a point in
favor of having a standard.

Another possible angle that could be taken is to invest in a proposal
for the SQL committee to consider, forcing an actual standard that
PostgreSQL could rely on rather than having one behavior implemented
to have it standard-incompatible a few years after.  And luckily, we
have Vik Fearing and Peter Eisentraut in this community who invest
time and resources in this area.

FWIW, I do agree with the opinion that if you want to propose rebased
versions of this patch set on a periodic basis, you are free to do so.
This is the core concept of an open community.  In terms of my
committer time, I'm pretty much already booked in terms of features
planned for the next release, so I guess that I won't be able to
invest time on this thread.  Just saying.

I know that this patch set has been discussed at FOSDEM at some point,
so others may be able to comment more about that.  That's just one
opinion among many others.
--
Michael