From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, DUVAL REMI <REMI(dot)DUVAL(at)cheops(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: schema variables |
Date: | 2025-05-21 20:41:38 |
Message-ID: | aC46goijVcDph1Nb@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 07:15:27AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 20. 5. 2025 v 23:07 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> napsal:
> > If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper
> > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about
> the
> > insistence of the author.
>
> Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected
> the patch set? If we officially reject it, the patch author would no
> longer post it?
>
> I'll respect committers. I really don't want to worry people in the community.
> It is not my way, and I am sorry.
I realize I am being the bad guy by asking these questions, but I don't
think it is good for the project to get distracted with a feature that
isn't progressing, and it is unpleasant for an author to keep working on
something with no clear direction from the community. I am happy to
learn that progress is being made.
I see this feature being first proposed in 2012:
and the first question was:
I don't really see what we can do with this that we can't do
without this.
Now, I think we have answered that question, and gotten closer to seeing
the complexities of adding this feature.
I am asking that, given its age, we more clearly direct this patch,
either toward completion or rejection.
> I think this is an important feature - for some group of developers, and then I
> push my energy and time for this.
> On the other hand, I accept that there is a lot of work that is important for a
> wider group of users. So it is. Unfortunately,
> without parser's hooks this feature cannot be implemented as an extension. But
> parser's hooks was proposed,
> and rejected, so there is no other possibility, how to do it. More -
> implementation of this feature as an extension is not
> best way.
I will reply to this in my next email.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-05-21 20:46:48 | vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age doesn't account for MultiXact member exhaustion |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-05-21 20:38:58 | Re: [Util] Warn and Remove Invalid GUCs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-05-21 21:22:15 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-05-21 07:12:54 | Re: proposal: schema variables |