Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com, er(at)xs4all(dot)nl, joel(at)compiler(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15
Date: 2024-01-29 18:46:01
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAYx=Yo2NxCZfFR0MdR-L3ob9DQ7K3KHB1RCv3DA7-xtA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

po 29. 1. 2024 v 19:36 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:

> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:57:42AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > ne 28. 1. 2024 v 19:00 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > napsal:
> >
> > > Thanks for the update, smaller patches looks promising.
> > >
> > > Off the list Pavel has mentioned that the first two patches contain a
> > > bare minimum for session variables, so I've reviewed them once more and
> > > suggest to concentrate on them first. I'm afraid the memory cleanup
> > > patch has to be added to the "bare minimum" set as well -- otherwise in
> > > my tests it was too easy to run out of memory via creating, assigning
> > > and dropping variables. Unfortunately one can't extract those three
> > > patches from the series and apply only them, the memory patch would
> have
> > > some conflicts. Can you maybe reshuffle the series to have those
> patches
> > > (1, 2 + 8) as first three?
> > >
> >
> > probably you need too
> >
> > 0006-function-pg_session_variables-for-cleaning-tests.patch and
> > 0007-DISCARD-VARIABLES.patch
> >
> > 6 is necessary for testing of cleaning
>
> Ok, let me take a look at those. Unless there are any objections, my
> plan would be to give it a final check and mark the CF item as ready for
> committer -- meaning the first 5 patches.
>

sure.

Thank you very much.

Pavel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2024-01-29 19:30:59 Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-01-29 18:37:58 Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?