Re: Getting to 9.3 beta

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Getting to 9.3 beta
Date: 2013-03-29 20:20:30
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCek7rd2AbNT=aTd1cBppZ6Uc_8UNxP7KXk+8MV92opsg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

> - plpgsql_check_function:
> Tom says (27661(dot)1364267665(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) that even if the approach
> can be aggreed uppon it needs quite a bit more work
> => move
>
>
Can we talk about this patch little bit more before moving to next
commitfest?

I would to have some plan to next commitfest. We have to remove some wanted
functionality - possibility to identify more issues in one run, remove
warnings, ... or we have significantly refactor plpgsql parser (two stages)

Next possibility - introduce some new API and move plpgsql_check_function
to external module, although I am thinking so this is important and very
missing functionality (and should be in core) still.

There is no reply, comments to my last update - where I rewrote output,
what was mayor Tom's objection (well specified).

Regards

Pavel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2013-03-29 20:23:11 Re: Hash Join cost estimates
Previous Message David Fetter 2013-03-29 19:12:40 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add parallel pg_dump option.