Re: proposal: schema variables

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, DUVAL REMI <REMI(dot)DUVAL(at)cheops(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
Date: 2024-07-25 13:52:47
Message-ID: 3b662dc5b615d4c20a55e8e2fbe6fc00fe00609d.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks for the updated patch set.

I found a problem in 0019-transactional-variables.patch:

--- a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
@@ -9851,6 +9851,17 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$<replaceable>&lt;iteration count&gt;</replaceable>:<replaceable>&l
</para></entry>
</row>

+ <row>
+ <entry><structfield>varistransact</structfield></entry>
+ <entry><type>boolean</type></entry>
+ <entry></entry>
+ <entry>
+ True, when the variable is "transactional". In case of transaction
+ rollback, transactional variables are reset to their content at the
+ transaction start. The default value is false.
+ </entry>
+ </row>

That's messed up; it should be

<row>
<entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
<structfield>varistransact</structfield> <type>boolean</type>
</para>
<para>
True, when the variable is <quote>transactional</quote>. In the case
of a transaction rollback, transactional variables are reset to the
value they had when the transaction started. The default value is
<literal>false</literal>.
</para></entry>
</row>

I have started reading through the first patch, and so far I have only found
language problems.

I wonder how I should go about this. At first, I intended to send an edited
version of the first patch, but as later patches depend on earlier patches,
that would mess up the patch set.

I can send my suggested modifications in text, but then you have to copy and
paste them all, which is cumbersome.

What would be best for you?

Thinking further, I wondered about the order of patches.
If some committer eventually takes mercy on this patch set, I expect that
only a part of the functionality will go in as a first step.
Does the order of the patches in the patch set match such a process?

I'd guess that temporary session variables or ON TRANSACTION END RESET
would be things that can be committed later on, but PL/pgSQL support
should be in the first commit.

What is your approach to that?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message wenhui qiu 2024-07-25 13:54:08 Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2024-07-25 13:45:32 Re: Typos in the code and README