Horton

Re: proposal: schema variables

Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2024-11-10T17:41:07Z
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 Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 05:19:09PM GMT, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 10. 11. 2024 v 16:24 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks for continuing this work. As a side note, I would like to mention
> > how strange the situation in this CF item is. If I understand correctly,
> > there are two hackers threads discussing the same patch, with recent
> > patches posted in both of them. This is obviously confusing, e.g. the
> > main concern from another thread, about names clashing, wasn't even
> > mentioned in this one. Is it possible to reconcile development in one
> > thread?
> >
>
> This is probably my error. I don't try to organize threads, just I'll try
> to reply in the thread where I got a question.

It's fine. I just would appreciate some clarity about which patch to
look at. To confirm, the series in this thread contains everything from
the other one, plus some improvements, right?