| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
| Date: | 2019-03-07 08:19:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBB7o0Z8zV9Ex+VAxGtxt7GFi3otbCk0aA_FD76aJe33g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
čt 7. 3. 2019 v 8:03 odesílatel David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> napsal:
> On 2/4/19 8:12 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > attached rebased patch
>
> This patch has gone through a few iterations but I don't think there's
> any agreement on what it should look like. There's been no code review
> that I can see.
>
> I think this should be pushed to PG13 at the least, perhaps returned
> with comment or rejected.
>
This patch is in this moment in this form interesting just for
plpgsql_check's users.
I cannot to move forward without this functionality .. I have a promise of
review by some people from big company that uses plpgsql_check, but if
there is not interest from commiter's side, then it is not time for pushing
this patch today.
On second hand, the proposed syntax is same like for autonomous
transactions, so I believe, so this patch will come in few years.
Please, wait few week, and then it can be rejected.
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards,
> --
> -David
> david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-03-07 08:23:59 | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2019-03-07 08:19:49 | Re: Re: Ltree syntax improvement |