From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:19:26 +0100
Message-ID: <202411041419.qif3lqaisktw@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdtp2giJtmoXcfyhAKu19=A5my53umR79W3nS0fb75HcyA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-Nov-04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:04 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > Using output parameters in a procedure is something I did not recall.
> > Based on your point about not using a function due your argument based
> > on the snapshots, let's just use that and forget about the status
> > function entirely (please?).
>
> Please, check [1]. Usage of output parameters is a bit awkward too,
> because you need to pass some value in there. And more importantly,
> usage of output parameters also causes snapshot problem, as it causes
> another snapshot to be held.
I wonder if it would be better to go back to the original idea of using
special DDL syntax rather than a procedure. It seems we've been piling
up hacks to get around the behavior of procedures, and we seem to have
grown one more to handle repeatable read transactions.
It's looking to me like there's just too much cruft in the quest to
avoid having to reach consensus on new syntax. This might be a mistake.
Is it possible to backtrack on that decision?
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas',
en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo
algo nuevo" (Jaime Salinas)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, aekorotkov@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, hlinnaka@iki.fi, pashkin.elfe@gmail.com, peter@eisentraut.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure
In-Reply-To: <202411041419.qif3lqaisktw@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox