| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
| Date: | 2018-04-20 15:32:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaf44_UONp7zHgmkRwFNPbr7-7XnuZYu_JqSdZMrLi3cA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It true, so there are lot of "unused" attributes for this purpose, but there
> is lot of shared attributes, and lot of shared code. Semantically, I see
> variables in family of sequences, tables, indexes, views. Now, it shares
> code, and I hope in next steps more code can be shared - constraints,
> triggers.
I dunno, it seems awfully different to me. There's only one "column",
right? What code is really shared here? Are constraints and triggers
even desirable feature for variables? What would be the use case?
I think stuffing this into pg_class is pretty strange.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-20 15:36:58 | Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-04-20 14:18:12 | Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-04-20 17:45:06 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Fabio Pardi | 2018-04-20 09:48:38 | Re: pg_upgrade help |