Committed.
--
nathan
2025年6月25日(水) 5:04 Nathan Bossart :
>
> Here is what I have staged for commit.
I had another look at this with reasonably eyeballs and can't see
any obvious issues (though can't discount that I'm suffering from "patch
blindness").
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this so far!
Regar
Here is what I have staged for commit.
--
nathan
>From 41168622a142ae40e43f9d71b8ed1e992fe4e4a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:57:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v7 1/1] Add new OID alias type regdatabase.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 04:55:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match the
>> others. If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
>> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch. Also,
Nathan Bossart writes:
> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match the
> others. If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch. Also, from reading
> around [0], I get the idea that "shippability"
>
> >
> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match
the
> others. If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch. Also, from reading
> around [0], I get the idea that "shippability" might just mean th
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 04:17:26PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
