public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: DUVAL REMI <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:09:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFj8pRB5Db7bRupXG0MYKTWp8qj6wWtgJV0Guw31XarTKzaf+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRAsEoeZv0HEnA8CKgFKDSQ-wYw18Os1vdksWCV7ez2bVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFj8pRCDWjgo=yLEK-jRDe5VwuNSQSmMqPPmysQf9nHA8gifnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRA2jbXRTGgM1co8gLCNttgaH8miRUSSauMJKWgousDsDg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRA6nJRg8oq5k_Cdk5oH5_FjtViG8XLmHKrkqOuiMT_CKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRBWMLP3Vyr8z+19eaiJKQoVtBfmDhNJFKXDX6uFzd4vBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAFj8pRAjU-X6rEE9=1++PdtXOPc2uo=yu-tcFXByi-kN3B_7Vw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRC+hPCc2X88xC=pTJoqmVPApDsageZOMyqaxi5788WxHA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRDJ9cq00VYSHxs6LsoHNWjhYXyWWBtV6UgeWwhs0AHa9A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRBPXTcw_3fpKtgVthV2+9rZGhxitZ40DnAwCrK601TZZg@mail.gmail.com>
<ndtfl4tsnpkb7m7hwvnmlpsascpgd3a7xvjmjhtxffsbrgygtm@4du6zsmnnwq5>
<CAFj8pRAu4XvNCGu1751t=2YEqLqTjDA3FavMExm2S0KYQq=DdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRAsEoeZv0HEnA8CKgFKDSQ-wYw18Os1vdksWCV7ez2bVw@mail.gmail.com>
ne 10. 11. 2024 v 18:51 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
napsal:
>
>
> ne 10. 11. 2024 v 17:19 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
> napsal:
>
>>
>>
>> ne 10. 11. 2024 v 16:24 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Thanks for continuing this work. As a side note, I would like to mention
>>> how strange the situation in this CF item is. If I understand correctly,
>>> there are two hackers threads discussing the same patch, with recent
>>> patches posted in both of them. This is obviously confusing, e.g. the
>>> main concern from another thread, about names clashing, wasn't even
>>> mentioned in this one. Is it possible to reconcile development in one
>>> thread?
>>>
>>
>> This is probably my error. I don't try to organize threads, just I'll try
>> to reply in the thread where I got a question.
>>
>
> I thought a lot of time about better solutions for identifier collisions
> and I really don't think so there is some consistent user friendly syntax.
> Personally I think there is an easy already implemented solution -
> convention - just use a dedicated schema for variables and this schema
> should not be in the search path. Or use secondary convention - like using
> prefix "__" for session variables. Common convention is using "_" for
> PLpgSQL variables. I searched how this issue is solved in other databases,
> or in standard, and I found nothing special. The Oracle and SQL/PSM has a
> concept of visibility - the variables are not visible outside packages or
> modules, but Postgres has nothing similar. It can be emulated by a
> dedicated schema without inserting a search path, but it is less strong.
>
There can be more collisions in Oracle, because the functions without
arguments don't need parentheses. Postgres is safer, because this syntax is
not allowed.
>
> I think we can introduce an alternative syntax, that will not be user
> friendly or readable friendly, but it can be without collisions - or can
> decrease possible risks.
>
> It is nothing new - SQL does it with old, "new" syntax of inner joins, or
> in Postgres we can
>
> where salary < 40000
>
> or
>
> where pg_catalog.int4lt(salary, 40000);
>
>
> or some like we use for operators OPERATOR(*schema*.*operatorname*)
>
> So introducing VARIABLE(schema.variablename) syntax as an alternative
> syntax for accessing variables I really like. I strongly prefer to use this
> as only alternative (secondary) syntax, because I don't think it is
> friendly syntax or writing friendly, but it is safe, and I can imagine
> tools that can replace generic syntax to this special, or that detects
> generic syntax and shows some warning. Then users can choose what they
> prefer. Two syntaxes - generic and special can be good enough for all - and
> this can be perfectly consistent with current Postgres.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>
view thread (439+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRB5Db7bRupXG0MYKTWp8qj6wWtgJV0Guw31XarTKzaf+A@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox