Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 17:10:09 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
	jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	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: Re: proposal: schema variables
Message-ID: <aCzvscQ8FCOsFKtX@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAFj8pRC_2tHski1K4hUMZm0+T4y7na4d8hwgMMF7Y0MXhfUhbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-JLwaOdMQN838Fy2r2qZLTExfJp0zcjQjmOFVRXhW_-uDNVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRArtw+Qqzk+Zf2NxjgO=paCBdc54eEma+MsVwtx3j7Atg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRAK_8ym1J=SAdin-vtL0PAachXgjWgU3QrhzinRdBX2sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <CAFj8pRABfnPMJCzqLKp11q-FhpdteTcAG8Bqm6SOoe-RA2uxcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFj8pRABfnPMJCzqLKp11q-FhpdteTcAG8Bqm6SOoe-RA2uxcA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aCzvscQ8FCOsFKtX%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:28:31PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 20. 5. 2025 v 18:39 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> napsal:
> I sent a reduced version a few months ago - from 21 patches to 8 (and it can be
> reduced to six if we postpone tools for detection ambiguity).
> The timing was not perfect - the focus was and it is concentrated to finish
> pg18.

It was not clear to me that this patch set was being reduced to make it
more likely it would be accepted?  I thought it was the same patch set
since 20??.

> I am very sorry if this topic and patches bother anyone. I am afraid if I close
> it to some personal github, it will not be visible, and I am sure this
> feature is missing in Postgres. Today we have few workarounds. Some workarounds
> are not available everywhere, some workarounds cannot
> be used for security. With integrated solutions some scenarios can be done more
> easily, more secure, faster, more comfortable.  It is true, so
> mentioned scenarios are not "hot" today. Stored procedures or RLS or migration
> procedures from other databases are not extra common. But
> who uses it, then he misses session variables.

Understood.  If people feel it is progressing toward acceptance, I
certainly withdraw my objection and apologize.

-- 
  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.