On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:27:38PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:31 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > Are you aware of such an ORM which both supports WITH and doesn't > > also closely track PostgreSQL development? I'm not. > > > > Even assuming that such a thing exists, it's not at all obvious to > > me that we should be stalling and/or putting in what will turn out > > to be misfeatures to accommodate it. > > I know SQLAlchemy does support CTEs, and lags quite considerably in > its support of the latest syntactic elements. > > For instance, it took them 8 months to support the "skip locked" > option.
That is pretty strictly their problem.
> Not sure whether that qualifies as "closely tracking" postgres for > you. Clearly they do track it, but that doesn't mean they're fast or > as fast as one would like/need.
We can NOT make their tardiness a driver of our development.
> Sure, that might not be enough to warrant the GUC. I would think so, > those are my 2 cents. YMMV.
When we add a "temporary" GUC, we're taking on a gigantic burden. Either we support it forever somehow, or we put it on a deprecation schedule immediately and expect to be answering questions about it for years after it's been removed.
-1 for the GUC.
Is possible to find consensus without GUC? I understand well, why GUC is wrong, but I don't see any possible solution how to change current behave and don't break lot of applications.
