On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:37:29AM +0800, jian he wrote:
> I saw REGROLEOID in foreign_expr_walker,
> I'm wondering whether REGDATABASEOID is reachable within foreign_expr_walker.
>
> not familiar with this area, also there are no coverage tests for
> other reg*Const,
> per
> https://coverage.pos
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 11:20 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:38:04PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> > Revised patch attached which adds coverage of that and also for the
> > "constant of the type reg(role|database) cannot be used here" error.
>
> LGTM. I've marked it
On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:38:04PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> Revised patch attached which adds coverage of that and also for the
> "constant of the type reg(role|database) cannot be used here" error.
LGTM. I've marked it as ready-for-committer [0] and will plan on
committing it as soon
2025年5月8日(木) 12:41 Nathan Bossart :
>
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:29:43AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:55 AM Ian Lawrence Barwick
> > wrote:
> >> Version which applies/builds against current HEAD attached. I haven't yet
> >> had a chance to look at the code beyon
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:41:23PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The attached patch should address everything I've mentioned.
And this version of the patch should be free of my embarrassing copy/paste
mistakes.
--
nathan
>From c5460d594a225d3443f901e79c6c9bc7501bd9af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Fr
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:29:43AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:55 AM Ian Lawrence Barwick
> wrote:
>> Version which applies/builds against current HEAD attached. I haven't yet
>> had a chance to look at the code beyond fixing it, however.
I spent some time on this
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:55 AM Ian Lawrence Barwick
wrote:
> Version which applies/builds against current HEAD attached. I haven't yet
> had a chance to look at the code beyond fixing it, however.
>
I too, have wanted this over the years, so +1 on the idea.
Quick review: nice patch, very thorou
On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 21:29, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> Every once in a while, I find myself wanting to use regdatabase for
> something like current_database()::regdatabase, and I'm always surprised
> when I inevitably rediscover that it doesn't exist.
+1 for the idea. I keep running into this too
2025年5月7日(水) 10:47 Nathan Bossart :
>
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:18:28AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> > Hah, I put together a patch to implement just that a while back, but
> > then concluded
> > for some reason that it would likely be rejected so saved myself the
> > humiliation of
> > s
Nathan Bossart writes:
> * Would anyone object if I put together some patches to add regdatabase?
The original concept of the reg* types was to implement lookups for
cases that are more complicated than "(SELECT oid FROM pg_foo WHERE
fooname = 'whatever')". As an example, regprocedure would be
s
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 08:45:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For regdatabase, there would be at least two simplications related to
> the dump of subscriptions, where we could switch the queries to the
> new grammar for backend versions able to support the new grammar,
> meaning that we could
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:18:28AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> Hah, I put together a patch to implement just that a while back, but
> then concluded
> for some reason that it would likely be rejected so saved myself the
> humiliation of
> submitting it...
>
> Attaching patch for reference
2025年5月7日(水) 4:29 Nathan Bossart :
>
> Every once in a while, I find myself wanting to use regdatabase for
> something like current_database()::regdatabase, and I'm always surprised
> when I inevitably rediscover that it doesn't exist. I only found one
> reference to the idea in the archives [0].
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 07:28:02AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I think regdatabase is a good idea.
I've also found your reference from the lists of 2019 to be the only
one referring to a regdatabase.
If it means that I will type less by not having to do joins with
pg_database, count me in.
The
> Every once in a while, I find myself wanting to use regdatabase for
> something like current_database()::regdatabase, and I'm always surprised
> when I inevitably rediscover that it doesn't exist. I only found one
> reference to the idea in the archives [0]. So, I have two questions:
>
> * Is
15 matches
Mail list logo
