On 2022-03-22 13:15:34 -0500, David Christensen wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2022, at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If we'd done it like this from the beginning, it'd have been
> > great, but retrofitting it now is a lot less appealing.
>
> Yeah, agreed on this. As far as I’m concerned we can reject.
> On Mar 21, 2022, at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
>> My impression is that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the concept? If
>> that's true we maybe ought to mark the CF entry as rejected?
>
> Yeah, I'm kind of leaning that way too. I don't see how we can
>
Andres Freund writes:
> My impression is that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the concept? If
> that's true we maybe ought to mark the CF entry as rejected?
Yeah, I'm kind of leaning that way too. I don't see how we can
incorporate the symbolic values into any existing display paths
without
Hi,
On 2022-01-12 12:57:02 -0600, David Christensen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > According to the cfbot, the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs a
> > rebase: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3290.log
>
> V4 rebased attached.
Doesn't apply anymore, again:
> Hi,
>
> According to the cfbot, the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs a
> rebase: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3290.log
V4 rebased attached.
special-guc-values-v4.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:50 AM David Christensen wrote:
>
> Hi, enclosed is a v3 [...]
According to the cfbot, the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs a
rebase: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3290.log
> 43 out of 133 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>
> On Nov 3, 2021, at 5:35 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2021, at 23:54, Cary Huang wrote:
>>
>> I scanned through the GUC list and found that the following parameters can
>> potentially be categorized in the "special_disabled0" group, just for your
>> reference.
>
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2021, at 23:54, Cary Huang wrote:
> I scanned through the GUC list and found that the following parameters can
> potentially be categorized in the "special_disabled0" group, just for your
> reference.
This patch no longer applies, can you please submit a rebased version? Also,
do
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
Hi
I quite like the feature this patch provides, it makes
Updated version attached with comment fixes and updated for new GUC.
special-guc-values-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
It looks like this patch rotted a little and needs to be rebased. Please see
http://cfbot.cputube.org/
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 03:58:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > I'm at -0.5 as to whether such a patch would actually be an improvement or
> > whether the added possibilities would just be confusing and, because it is
> > all
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 03:58:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm at -0.5 as to whether such a patch would actually be an improvement or
> whether the added possibilities would just be confusing and, because it is
> all optional, indefinitely so.
FWIW, I find this proposition of
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:44 PM David Christensen <
david.christen...@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> Functionality-wise, any thoughts on the overall approach or the specific
> patch?
>
If this information was exposed only by an addition to pg_settings, and
thus not changeable via a GUC or affecting
> Hi,
> For parse_special_int():
>
> + * true. If it's not found, return false and retval is set to 0.
> ...
> + /* don't touch the return value in other case */
> + return false;
>
> It seems the two comments are not consistent with each other (retval is not
> set in case no entry is found).
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:17 PM David Christensen <
david.christen...@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> -hackers,
>
> Enclosed, find a POC patch that implements "special values" for int GUCs.
> We have quite a few GUCs
> with values that have special meaning atop other settings. I have
> attempted to
On 8/20/21 12:09 AM, David Christensen wrote:
> -hackers,
>
> Enclosed, find a POC patch that implements "special values" for int GUCs. We
> have quite a few GUCs
> with values that have special meaning atop other settings. I have attempted
> to identify these and
> make it so you can specify
-hackers,
Enclosed, find a POC patch that implements "special values" for int GUCs. We
have quite a few GUCs
with values that have special meaning atop other settings. I have attempted to
identify these and
make it so you can specify a symbol name for these values instead of just
relying on
18 matches
Mail list logo
