On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 05:44:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Changing get_altertable_subcmdtypes() to return a set of rows made of > > (subcommand, object description) is what I actually meant upthread as > > it feels natural given a CollectedCommand in input, and as > > pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() only gives access to a set of > > CollectedCommands. This is also a test module so > > there is no issue in changing the existing function definitions. > > > > But your point would be to have a new function that takes in input a > > CollectedATSubcmd, returning back the object address or its > > description? How would you make sure that a subcommand maps to a > > correct object address? > > FWIW, I was thinking about something among the lines of 0002 on top of > Hou's patch. >
What I intended to say is similar to what you have done in the patch but in a new function. OTOH, your point that it is okay to change function signature/name in the test module seems reasonable to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
