Re: SQL:2011 application time

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: 2025-03-18 09:49:51
Message-ID: CALDaNm0WoB+w4qz4n1ms3hTfLeRGzmUvBjRH0Weod5gsVpJ5hg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 16:26, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 26.02.25 06:15, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> > > ON DELETE RESTRICT must be specified when PERIOD BUSINESS_TIME is
> > also specified.
> >
> > Here are some patches removing support for RESTRICT
>
> I have committed this.
>
> I think this is about as much as we can hope to get done from this patch
> series for PG18. I don't think the subsequent patches are ready enough.
> As an example, the FOR PORTION OF still has the problem I mentioned at
> <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d4c5de4d-ff2d-4ef6-b7a2-1787dfa6427b%40eisentraut.org>,
> and a few similar structural problems. Also, I see that you have
> recently changed some things to make use of SPI, which seems
> problematic. This needs much further analysis.
>
> My suggestions is to close the commitfest entry as "committed" and start
> new threads and new entries for the subsequent features.

I have marked this commitfest entry as committed based on your
suggestion. It is better to start a new thread for the remaining work.

Regards,
Vignesh

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-03-18 09:51:14 Re: Fwd: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2025-03-18 09:45:41 Re: ecdh support causes unnecessary roundtrips