Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

2024-01 Commitfest. Hi, This patch has a CF status of "Needs Review" [1], but it seems there were CFbot test failures last time it was run [2]. Please have a look and post an updated version if necessary. == [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4688/ [2] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5066432

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

В письме от пятница, 8 декабря 2023 г. 15:59:09 MSK пользователь Alvaro Herrera написал: > > Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch > > now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly > > unchanged. > > > > This will be total mess with two

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On 2023-Dec-08, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch > now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly > unchanged. > > This will be total mess with two different options mechanisms working in the > same time,

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

В письме от пятница, 8 декабря 2023 г. 08:59:41 MSK пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > I've rebased patch, so it could be add to commitfest again. > > This is a 270kB patch with quite a few changes, and a lot of code > > moved around: > > 47 files changed, 2592 insertions(+), 2326 delet

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 08:10:29AM +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote: > I've rebased patch, so it could be add to commitfest again. This is a 270kB patch with quite a few changes, and a lot of code moved around: > 47 files changed, 2592 insertions(+), 2326 deletions(-) Could it be possible to split tha

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:03 AM vignesh C wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 14:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > On 2023-Jan-31, vignesh C wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 18:38, vignesh C wrote: > > > There has been no updates on this thread for some time, so this has > > > been switched

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On 2023-Feb-02, vignesh C wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 14:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Well, no feedback has been given, so I'm not sure this is a great > > outcome. In the interest of keeping it alive, I've rebased it. It > > turns out that the only conflict is with the 2022 -> 2023 copyri

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 14:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2023-Jan-31, vignesh C wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 18:38, vignesh C wrote: > > > > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased > > > patch: > > > === Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID > >

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

В письме от среда, 1 февраля 2023 г. 12:04:26 MSK пользователь Alvaro Herrera написал: > On 2023-Jan-31, vignesh C wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 18:38, vignesh C wrote: > > > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased > > > patch: === Applying patches on top of Po

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 18:38, vignesh C wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 11:42, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > > > > В письме от воскресенье, 6 ноября 2022 г. 19:22:09 MSK пользователь Nikolay > > Shaplov написал: > > > > > > > > cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is > >

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 11:42, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > > В письме от воскресенье, 6 ноября 2022 г. 19:22:09 MSK пользователь Nikolay > Shaplov написал: > > > > > > cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is > > > > > currently underway, this would be an excellent time to

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

2022年7月12日(火) 13:47 Nikolay Shaplov : > > В письме от вторник, 12 июля 2022 г. 07:30:40 MSK пользователь Nikolay Shaplov > написал: > > > What about table access methods? There have been a couple attempts to > > > allow custom reloptions for table AMs. Does this patch help that use > > > case? > >

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

В письме от понедельник, 11 июля 2022 г. 23:03:55 MSK пользователь Jeff Davis написал: > > For index access methods "amoptions" member function that preformed > > option > > processing, were replaced with "amreloptspecset" member function that > > provided > > an SpecSet for reloptions for this A

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 00:43 +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > For index access methods "amoptions" member function that preformed > option > processing, were replaced with "amreloptspecset" member function that > provided > an SpecSet for reloptions for this AM, so caller can trigger option > proce

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

forbid_realloc is only tested in an assert. There needs to be an "if" test for it somewhere (suppose some extension author uses this API and only runs it in assert-disabled environment; they'll never know they made a mistake). But do we really need this option? Why do we need a hardcoded limit i

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

I'm sorry if you've already said this elsewhere, but can you please state what is the *intention* of this patchset? If it's a pure refactoring (but I don't think it is), then it's a net loss, because after pgindent it summarizes as: 58 files changed, 2714 insertions(+), 2368 deletions(-) so we

Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

Hi, On 2022-02-14 00:43:36 +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > I'd like to introduce a patch that reworks options processing. This doesn't apply anymore: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_37_3536.log Given that this patch has been submitted just to the last CF and that there's been no action on it, I