Re: proposal: schema variables

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, 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: 2025-05-20T21:06:59Z

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 Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 16:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> In my opinion, this patch set is adding something that would be valuable to
> have in core.
> 
> If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper
> action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about the
> insistence of the author.

Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected
the patch set?  If we officially reject it, the patch author would no
longer post it?

-- 
  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.