Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRCUx0QiRdUj+-Kmz3F1opd-Nt7f2-YLQwE-LeoMaScNGg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
út 9. 4. 2019 v 15:03 odesílatel David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> napsal:
Hi Pavel,
On 3/25/19 3:50 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> po 25. 3. 2019 v 8:38 odesílatel David Steele <david@pgmasters.net
> <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> napsal:
>
> On 3/10/19 8:39 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Here is pragma patch with demo
> We're still not getting real review for this patch and Andrew seems as
> skeptical as anyone that this is the right way to go.
>
> I'm planning to mark it as rejected at the end of this CF.
>
>
> I hope so Andrew will have some time to review this patch
As discussed above, I have marked this patch as rejected. It appears
that a more general purpose approach is required to get a consensus on
this feature.
I have to accepted this decision. I cannot to write this patch more general - it's absolute generic (or I didn't understand objections).
I agree so now, there are higher priorities, and there are not customers for this patch. But from syntax, semantic perspective, this patch is correct. Now, it is interesting for plpgsql_check users, and their voice was not here, unfortunately. I cannot do more in this area.
Regards
Pavel
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: