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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRCUx0QiRdUj+-Kmz3F1opd-Nt7f2-YLQwE-LeoMaScNGg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

út 9. 4. 2019 v 15:03 odesílatel David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> napsal:
Hi Pavel,

On 3/25/19 3:50 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> po 25. 3. 2019 v 8:38 odesílatel David Steele <david@pgmasters.net
> <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> napsal:
>
>     On 3/10/19 8:39 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>     >     Here is pragma patch with demo
>     We're still not getting real review for this patch and Andrew seems as
>     skeptical as anyone that this is the right way to go.
>
>     I'm planning to mark it as rejected at the end of this CF.
>
>
> I hope so Andrew will have some time to review this patch

As discussed above, I have marked this patch as rejected.  It appears
that a more general purpose approach is required to get a consensus on
this feature.

I have to accepted this decision. I cannot to write this patch more general - it's absolute generic (or I didn't understand objections).

I agree so now, there are higher priorities, and there are not customers for this patch. But from syntax, semantic perspective, this patch is correct. Now, it is interesting for plpgsql_check users, and their voice was not here, unfortunately. I cannot do more in this area.

Regards

Pavel

 

Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: PageGetFreeSpace() isn't quite the right thing for some of its callers
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs