Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 16:41:38 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
	Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
	jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
Message-ID: <aC46goijVcDph1Nb@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAFj8pRAx-Gb9Ux825cxGNm38qQUOrij1GY6erPRaQ=cpqfiX7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRCEjG005L=1vGbir-odYdcYxByOAeFVJ_K9eRcRF=MbNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aCyYHXhAjXOUPvLO@momjian.us>
 <CAB-JLwY2-Hm_SYbj2td_VKuU8awCwgDr-sOtjHRE2C-Sgg_pFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aCywNzDx2J3jrY1-@momjian.us>
 <41D2EE98-224D-4B43-9F8B-127525A99CD7@yesql.se>
 <aCzl0SQYGTBJfdtY@momjian.us>
 <138d50cd8d9617469922eb0017956a3610089064.camel@cybertec.at>
 <aCzu84eWXnXPvFmf@momjian.us>
 <CAFj8pRAp1pWvJQ6uP_RDFMFRZfDqGz7beHGz0+eZJQ6o8nzv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFj8pRAp1pWvJQ6uP_RDFMFRZfDqGz7beHGz0+eZJQ6o8nzv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aC46goijVcDph1Nb%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 07:15:27AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 20. 5. 2025 v 23:07 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> napsal:
>     > If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper
>     > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about
>     the
>     > insistence of the author.
> 
>     Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected
>     the patch set?  If we officially reject it, the patch author would no
>     longer post it?
> 
> I'll respect committers. I really don't want to worry people in the community.
> It is not my way, and I am sorry.

I realize I am being the bad guy by asking these questions, but I don't
think it is good for the project to get distracted with a feature that
isn't progressing, and it is unpleasant for an author to keep working on
something with no clear direction from the community.  I am happy to
learn that progress is being made.

I see this feature being first proposed in 2012:

	https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFj8pRDdk_4E8HiffbVOfk97iR%2BSLFoZpRT4D2nTE89YU-hQrg%40mail.gmail.com

and the first question was:

	I don't really see what we can do with this that we can't do
	without this.

Now, I think we have answered that question, and gotten closer to seeing
the complexities of adding this feature.

I am asking that, given its age, we more clearly direct this patch,
either toward completion or rejection.

> I think this is an important feature - for some group of developers, and then I
> push my energy and time for this.
> On the other hand, I accept that there is a lot of work that is important for a
> wider group of users. So it is. Unfortunately,
> without parser's hooks this feature cannot be implemented as an extension. But
> parser's hooks was proposed,
> and rejected, so there is no other possibility, how to do it. More -
> implementation of this feature as an extension is not
> best way.

I will reply to this in my next email.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.