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=
>> even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I
>> fully grasp all the details here.
>
> It's all quite squishy, unfortunately, because shippability is a
> heuristic rather than something we can determine with certainty
> (at reasonable
> fully grasp all the details here.
It's all quite squishy, unfortunately, because shippability is a
heuristic rather than something we can determine with certainty
(at reasonable cost, anyway). But I agree with treating regdatabase
the same as the other reg* types,
ly grasp all the details here.
>
> [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/1423433.1652722406%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>
I agree with blocking it for now. The patch LGTM, all tests pass and seems
to cover all the changes.
Not sure if it is worth having some dump/restore tap tests for tables with
regdatabase type.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
r shipping reg* values in the first place. But
even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I
fully grasp all the details here.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/1423433.1652722406%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
nathan
>From 54bf1375622791212e3fde8a823b2107df66b8a9 Mon Sep 1
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
>> had a chance to look at the code beyond fixing it, however.
>
> I spent some time on this one. I saw two main things:
>
> * As of commit aa01051, pg_upgrade does preserve database OIDs, so we don't
> need to block for tables with columns of type regdatabase.
>
>
:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 22:24:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/1] Add regdatabase.
XXX: NEEDS CATVERSION BUMP
Author: Ian Lawrence Barwick
Reviewed-by: Greg Sabino Mullane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/aBpjJhyHpM2LYcG0%40nathan
---
doc/src/sgml/da
.
I spent some time on this one. I saw two main things:
* As of commit aa01051, pg_upgrade does preserve database OIDs, so we don't
need to block for tables with columns of type regdatabase.
* Some of the regproc.c code needs to use the soft error functions instead.
I believe both of the
ce patch, very thorough; applies cleanly; all tests pass;
acts as I would expect when testing manually.
Minor pgindent issue in the comment in src/backend/catalog/dependency.c
Would be nice to have test coverage of our special "single dash" case, e.g.
select regdatabase('-')::oid
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
c/src/sgml/datatype.sgml
index 09309ba0390..cab8f0fda93 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml
@@ -4737,6 +4737,10 @@ INSERT INTO mytable VALUES(-1); -- fails
regconfig
+
+regdatabase
+
+
regdictionary
@@ -4878,6 +4882,13 @@ SEL
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
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 t
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 th
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
> 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 tw
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:
* I
23 matches
Mail list logo
