| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parse/analyze API refactoring |
| Date: | 2022-02-28 06:46:40 |
| Message-ID: | 72519c4f-ebd8-b796-8216-1e6213fc1cf1@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
You set this commit fest entry to Waiting on Author, but there were no
reviews posted and the patch still applies and builds AFAICT, so I don't
know what you meant by that.
On 13.01.22 00:49, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 12/28/21, 8:25 AM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> (The "withcb" naming maybe isn't great; better ideas welcome.)
>
> FWIW I immediately understood that this meant "with callback," so it
> might be okay.
>
>> Not included in this patch set, but food for further thought: The
>> pg_analyze_and_rewrite_*() functions aren't all that useful (anymore).
>> One might as well write
>>
>> pg_rewrite_query(parse_analyze_xxx(...))
>
> I had a similar thought while reading through the patches. If further
> deduplication isn't too much trouble, I'd vote for that.
>
> Nathan
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-28 07:26:07 | Re: support for MERGE |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-28 06:32:22 | Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs) |