Hi út 20. 5. 2025 v 18:39 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> napsal:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:33:18PM -0300, Marcos Pegoraro wrote: > > Em ter., 20 de mai. de 2025 às 11:56, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > > escreveu: > > > > I will again ask why this patch set is being reposted when there is > no > > plan to apply it to git master > > > > Too bad. I would love to have this functionality, from the user's point > of view > > there are problems where it would solve them wonderfully. I don't know > > technically of what prevents it from being natively on core, but it > would be > > great, it would definitely be. > > My only point is that we should only be using email lists for work that > is being actively worked on to be added to community Postgres. There > has been talk of a trimmed-down version of this being applied, but I > don't see any work in that direction. > I sent a reduced version a few months ago - from 21 patches to 8 (and it can be reduced to six if we postpone tools for detection ambiguity). The timing was not perfect - the focus was and it is concentrated to finish pg18. I am very sorry if this topic and patches bother anyone. I am afraid if I close it to some personal github, it will not be visible, and I am sure this feature is missing in Postgres. Today we have few workarounds. Some workarounds are not available everywhere, some workarounds cannot be used for security. With integrated solutions some scenarios can be done more easily, more secure, faster, more comfortable. It is true, so mentioned scenarios are not "hot" today. Stored procedures or RLS or migration procedures from other databases are not extra common. But who uses it, then he misses session variables. This topic is difficult, because there is no common solution. SQL/PSM is almost dead. T-SQL (and MySQL) design is weak and cannot be used for security. Oracle's design is joined with just one environment. And although almost all widely used databases have supported session variables for decades, no one design is perfect. Proposed design is not perfect too (it introduces possible ambiguity) , but I think it can support most wanted use cases (can be enhanced in future), and it is consistent with Postgres. There are more ways to reduce risk of unwanted ambiguity to zero. But it increases the size of the patch. Regards Pavel > > This patch should be moved to a separate location where perhaps people > can subscribe to updates when they are posted, perhaps github. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us > EDB https://enterprisedb.com > > Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future. >
