Re: proposal: schema variables
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Commits
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 Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:47:36PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 20 May 2025, at 18:39, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > My only point is that we should only be using email lists for work that > > is being actively worked on to be added to community Postgres. There > > has been talk of a trimmed-down version of this being applied, but I > > don't see any work in that direction. > > > > This patch should be moved to a separate location where perhaps people > > can subscribe to updates when they are posted, perhaps github. > > As a project with no roadmap governed by open forum consensus I don't think we > have any right to tell community members what they can or cannot work on here, > any technical discussion which conforms with our published policies should be > welcome. If Pavel want's to continue rebasing his patchset here then he has, > IMHO, every right to do so. > > Whether or not a committer will show interest at some point is another thing, > but we are seeing a very good role-model for taking responsibility for ones > work here at the very least =) Well, we do have a right, e.g., we would not allow someone to repeatedly post patches for a Postgres extension we don't manage, or the jdbc driver. I also don't think we would allow someone to continue posting patches for a feature we have decided to reject, and I think we have decided to reject the patch in in its current form. I think we might accept a trimmed-down version, but I don't see the patch moving in that direction. Now, of course, if I am the only one who feels this way, I can suppress these emails on my end. -- 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.