![]() ^ They were < 1000 lines a year ago, apparently. Due to the separate development schedules for Postgres and OrioleDB, these changes cannot be unstreamed in time for v.15. > Currently the changes needed to Postgres core are less than a 1000 lines of code. So, going forward, how do you plan to keep up to date.?. and, you're already falling behind on it. Every change postgres makes, you have to merge in check it doesn't conflict, roll out a new patch set. I mean, this is literally what I'm pointing out in my comment you're chasing a moving target. The last commit that /postgres/postgres and /orioledb/postgres share (1) is 6 months old for 15.2? and the delta code to be committed upstream is less than 2K LOC. Building realtime experiences with Amazon Aurora.Note that in libpg_query we currently use Protobuf (but used to use JSON), which does have the benefit of getting auto-generated structs in the language bindings - but Protobuf is not used in core Postgres at all today.Īll in all, I think there is some upstream interest, but its not clear that this is a good idea from a maintainability perspective. įurther, there isn't a canonical way to output node trees into a text format today in core, besides the rather hard to work with output of debug_print_parse - there have been discussions on -hackers to potentially utilize JSON here, which may make this a bit easier. ![]() You can see how many files we pull in from the main tree that are prefixed with "src_backend". However, the challenge from what I've understood from past conversations with some folks working on Postgres core is that the parser is currently heavily tied into the backend - note the parser isn't just the scan.l/gram.y file, but also the raw parse node structs that it outputs. So theoretically you could imagine the parser moving into that shared code portion, sharing code but not necessarily requiring linking to a library from the backend. libpq, etc), and there is a shared set of code between the backend and the "frontend" ( ). Generally I agree that this would be great to have, and Postgres does have a set of libraries it already maintains as part of the main source tree (i.e. I view the PR as an decent place for all of this because it's basically a commit of commits, capturing the related changes/conversation/context all in a single place at the point of merge. I would think that sometimes you really do want to have a back and forth conversation in the PR, rather than just a "make this change" -> "ok done" type of feedback loop. > Then any review comments are preferably not addressed directly in the PR So then you have two choices: issues or PRs. I think I see what you're saying but as others have pointed out, sometimes you want to add screenshots etc to the context, and you can't capture this kind of info in commit messages. I could have found PR #373 via this search. For example, say git blame led me to this commit. Not sure if this would save any time, but it is possible to search PRs by commit. After identifying about 7 commits (with pretty basic/useless messages, and no PR link!), I then had to find the corresponding PRs based on timestamps, and search the PR history for PRs merged around those timestamps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |