On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:48:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > What I'm inclined to do, rather than repeat the same finicky & > undocumented coding pattern in one more place, is write a convenience > function for it that can be named and documented to reflect the coding > rule about which call sites should use it (rather than calling plain > generate_relation_name). However, the first requirement for that > is to have a clearly defined rule. I think the intent of 815172ba8068 > was to convert all uses that would determine the object-creation schema > in commands issued by pg_dump. Do we want to widen that, and if so > by how much? I'd be on board I think with adjusting other ruleutils.c > functions that could plausibly be used for building creation commands, > but happen not to be called by pg_dump. I'm not on board with > converting every single generate_relation_name call --- mainly because > it'd be pointless unless you also qualify every single function name, > operator name, etc; and that would be unreadable.
Lukas, please note that this patch is waiting for your input for a few weeks now. Could you reply to the reviews provided? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
