From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp33.i.mail.ru (smtp33.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.93])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1DBB46970F
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:03:55 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1573121685.git.imeevma@gmail.com>
 <12ed4be2e7e433fdca58a43fc3b937eb9a54f52f.1573121685.git.imeevma@gmail.com>
 <9fe3bd05-17de-e878-4395-4d15cf2f0b38@tarantool.org>
 <20191107141209.GA10466@tarantool.org>
 <93979a0b-1708-1125-1142-74f22734b088@tarantool.org>
 <20191115140609.GA15961@tarantool.org>
 <3d76e64a-cd03-1bf1-5830-0d0b142a5e27@tarantool.org>
 <194ae7ab-61bc-797a-527e-81704ade2545@tarantool.org>
 <20191127103309.GA16066@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <3062f665-907c-7860-bbbd-430c89b6a66e@tarantool.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:03:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191127103309.GA16066@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 3/5] sql: introduce SET statement
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Mergen Imeev <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On 27/11/2019 11:33, Mergen Imeev wrote:
> Hi! Thanks for the suggestion! I think your points are correct,
> but I think we should create a new issue after pushing SET.
> Issue #4621 about using VDBE in SET/control pragmas. All other
> pragmas already use VDBE. Since SET will use VDBE, I think we
> should close #4621 with #4511.

I see that we have different understanding of what it means - use
VDBE. I mean, that option value should be get/set at runtime.
Currently the only thing runtime does is return of metadata. All
the actual work happens at compile time.

To make binding works the only solution is to make
PRAGMA/SET/whatever work at runtime totally. When you will
properly move PRAGMA/SET to VDBE, you will get bindings for
free.

The patchset LGTM. Perhaps. I don't really know what is
our plan on session and SQL settings, so I can only approve the
technical part.

Seems like in our team design decisions about everything work
like 'lets see what PostgreSQL/MySQL/Ya.DB do, and we will do
literally the same'.