Re: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBB7o0Z8zV9Ex+VAxGtxt7GFi3otbCk0aA_FD76aJe33g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

čt 7. 3. 2019 v 8:03 odesílatel David Steele <david@pgmasters.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@pgmasters.net

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Ltree syntax improvement
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participatein comparisons