Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: ok, I accept all comments. revised version are attached. Applied with minor editorialization. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2010/1/19 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: ok, I accept all comments. revised version are attached. Applied with minor editorialization. thank you Pavel regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2010/1/12 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp: Hi, I'm reviewing OPEN FOR EXECUTE USING patch and have a couple of trivial comments. Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function - Can we use read_sql_expression2() instead of read_sql_construct() in gram.y? It could simplify the code a bit. - I'd prefer to change the new argument for exec_dynquery_with_params() from char *portalname to const char *curname. ok, I accept all comments. revised version are attached. Thank you, Pavel Stehule Other than the above minor issues, this patch is ready to commit. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center openexecusing-after-rev.diff Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: ok, I accept all comments. revised version are attached. Good. This patch is ready to commit. I'll do it soon if no objections. BTW, I found inconsistent parameter dumps in the codes. Some of them add '$', but others does not. Are they intentional? Or, should we adjust them to use one of the formats? [pl_funcs.c] dump_dynexecute() dump_raise() printf(parameter %d: , i++); dump_dynfors() dump_open() dump_return_query() printf(parameter $%d: , i++); Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2010/1/14 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: ok, I accept all comments. revised version are attached. Good. This patch is ready to commit. I'll do it soon if no objections. BTW, I found inconsistent parameter dumps in the codes. Some of them add '$', but others does not. Are they intentional? Or, should we adjust them to use one of the formats? [pl_funcs.c] dump_dynexecute() dump_raise() printf( parameter %d: , i++); dump_dynfors() dump_open() dump_return_query() printf( parameter $%d: , i++); isn't parameter of raise statement different than query parameter? I thing so $x convention respects parameter holder syntax. Regards Pavel Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Hi, I'm reviewing OPEN FOR EXECUTE USING patch and have a couple of trivial comments. Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function - Can we use read_sql_expression2() instead of read_sql_construct() in gram.y? It could simplify the code a bit. - I'd prefer to change the new argument for exec_dynquery_with_params() from char *portalname to const char *curname. Other than the above minor issues, this patch is ready to commit. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00713.php This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00713.php This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? Pavel ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com: 2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00713.php This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? typmode support is for this commitfest. Others for next commitfest. Pavel Pavel ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? Until this moment I was unconvinced of the need for a strict rule that patches from regular submitters who don't suspend patch development to contribute to the commitfest reviews should be ignored. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? Until this moment I was unconvinced of the need for a strict rule that patches from regular submitters who don't suspend patch development to contribute to the commitfest reviews should be ignored. what is wrong? Patches typmodes for functions and enhancing psql was notificated in proposal: *http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00934.php *http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00519.php (more than one moth old) patch for OPEN EXECUTE USING is reaction on Tom's mail http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00713.php (for me it is like a proposal) and this patch is +/- bugfix. I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what I know. I don't would to generate thousand patches now. Simply I have a time for postgres now. I wrote three patches. And I put it to commitfest, because I thing so this work is serious. So anybody can comment it, so anybody can test it. I put it to commitfest application, because this code is finished (or finished for reviewing) and I would lost these patches in this mailing list. Tomorrow I could be killed (maybe), tomorrow I could to lost data in my hardisc. I have not other patches. Don't afraid. Pavel -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? Until this moment I was unconvinced of the need for a strict rule that patches from regular submitters who don't suspend patch development to contribute to the commitfest reviews should be ignored. I agree they should be ignored until the NEXT commitfest. I do not agree that they should be dropped into a bucket. Joshua D. Drake -Kevin -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com: On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: This is now the fourth patch you've submitted since the start of the CommitFest... These patches are for next commitfest. What I know, the current commitfest is closed for new patches. Is it ok? Until this moment I was unconvinced of the need for a strict rule that patches from regular submitters who don't suspend patch development to contribute to the commitfest reviews should be ignored. I agree they should be ignored until the NEXT commitfest. I do not agree that they should be dropped into a bucket. I never sent these (last two) patches to THIS commitfest. Is it clean? I am maybe crazy, but I know when commitfest starting. Have I next month be quite? First patch I resent, because patch was broken. But this patch was sent to 2009-11-04. Really, I don't would to push my patches to this commitfest. Pavel Joshua D. Drake -Kevin -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I never sent these (last two) patches to THIS commitfest. Is it clean? Counting the In Progress commitfest and the two preceding ones, you have submitted nine patches and contributed to the review of none. Surely you noticed recent threads about how the review and commit steps are the bottleneck, help is desperately needed for the review process, and the point of commitfests is to get everyone to take a break from coding to help review the work of others? Several regular contributors have expressed frustration that while they are taking time off from their preferred activity of coding to contribute to the review process, others are stacking up a pile of patches for the next review cycle. Robert in particular has been burning himself out trying to keep the patch reviews rolling through so that everyone's patches can get proper consideration. I certainly appreciate that you are making contributions of patches to help make PostgreSQL better; but since the review process is the bottleneck, if you don't help review patches, any time spent by someone reviewing your patches comes out of the time they would be writing patches themselves. I'm sure it would be much appreciated, and help to alleviate the frustration and burnout of some other contributors, if you could take a turn at reviewing -- at least one patch each commitfest. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 15:40 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I never sent these (last two) patches to THIS commitfest. Is it clean? I'm sure it would be much appreciated, and help to alleviate the frustration and burnout of some other contributors, if you could take a turn at reviewing -- at least one patch each commitfest. In short Pavel, Nobody is complaining about your patches. It would just be really nice if you could help review some existing patches in this commit fest. Would you be willing to do so? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
Pavel Stehule wrote: I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what I know. If you're sending stuff intended for the next CommitFest in the middle of an active one (which we'd prefer not to see at all but you have your own schedule limitations), it would be helpful if you were to label those patches as such. It's difficult for the rest of us to tell which of the ones you're generating are in response to patches that are active during this one, and which are intended for future review but you're just dropping them off now. Had your new stuff been labeled This is for the next CommitFest, I'm just sending it to the list now, it would have made it easier on everyone else to figure out which of your messages we need to pay attention to and what should be ignored for now. -- Greg Smith2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Pavel Stehule wrote: I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what I know. If you're sending stuff intended for the next CommitFest in the middle of an active one (which we'd prefer not to see at all but you have your own schedule limitations), it would be helpful if you were to label those patches as such. It's difficult for the rest of us to tell which of the ones you're generating are in response to patches that are active during this one, and which are intended for future review but you're just dropping them off now. Had your new stuff been labeled This is for the next CommitFest, I'm just sending it to the list now, it would have made it easier on everyone else to figure out which of your messages we need to pay attention to and what should be ignored for now. This expresses my feelings on the topic exactly, and perhaps merits inclusion in a Wiki page someplace. Maybe we need to have a wiki page on commitfest rules expectations. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com: On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 15:40 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I never sent these (last two) patches to THIS commitfest. Is it clean? I'm sure it would be much appreciated, and help to alleviate the frustration and burnout of some other contributors, if you could take a turn at reviewing -- at least one patch each commitfest. In short Pavel, Nobody is complaining about your patches. It would just be really nice if you could help review some existing patches in this commit fest. Would you be willing to do so? I understand so there are missing people who can do a review. I could to help with plpgsql or psql code - or some catalog code. Pavel Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause
2009/11/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Pavel Stehule wrote: I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what I know. If you're sending stuff intended for the next CommitFest in the middle of an active one (which we'd prefer not to see at all but you have your own schedule limitations), it would be helpful if you were to label those patches as such. It's difficult for the rest of us to tell which of the ones you're generating are in response to patches that are active during this one, and which are intended for future review but you're just dropping them off now. Had your new stuff been labeled This is for the next CommitFest, I'm just sending it to the list now, it would have made it easier on everyone else to figure out which of your messages we need to pay attention to and what should be ignored for now. This expresses my feelings on the topic exactly, and perhaps merits inclusion in a Wiki page someplace. Maybe we need to have a wiki page on commitfest rules expectations. Ok, It's my mistake. I didn't would to attack anybody. I though so is sufficient information is registration in commitfest application. Patch in mailing list is one thing, but registration in second - crucial. And when commitfest is closed, then is clean, so new patches goes to next commitfest. I agree - It should frustrating - and it means some work more (for reades of mailing list). I have not a problem with labeling, when patch isn't used for current commitfest. Pavel ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
