Re: [PATCH v4] Make NumericVar storage semantics explicit

From: ChenhuiMo <chenhuimo(dot)mch(at)qq(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Make NumericVar storage semantics explicit
Date: 2026-07-26 05:43:51
Message-ID: tencent_99D46C27980AADD554DAA4667E8F3C63520A@qq.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi John,

Thanks for the detailed feedback.

> In short, a focused, genuine clarity-only change might be worth doing,
> but this patch is not the way to do it.

Understood. I agree that this version mixes the goal of making the
existing NumericVar contract more explicit with new inline-buffer
machinery that is closer to a performance-oriented change. That makes
the patch harder to review and does not fit the clarity-only framing
well.

I will withdraw this version rather than keep iterating on it in its
current form. If I come back to this, I will try to prepare a much
smaller patch focused only on documenting and clarifying the existing
NumericVar contract, without introducing new inline-buffer machinery or
changing the storage model so broadly.

Thanks also for the process advice. I will use inline quoting and
versioned patches generated with git format-patch -vN in future
submissions.

Thanks again for taking a look.

Regards,
Chenhui Mo

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mats Kindahl 2026-07-26 05:47:28 Recovery does not honor io_combine_limit, causing IOPS saturation
Previous Message ChenhuiMo 2026-07-26 05:30:32 [PATCH] Speed up repeat() for larger counts