Re: SQL:2011 application time - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From vignesh C
Subject Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date
Msg-id CALDaNm0WoB+w4qz4n1ms3hTfLeRGzmUvBjRH0Weod5gsVpJ5hg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL:2011 application time  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 16:26, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: ecdh support causes unnecessary roundtrips
Next
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits