Thanks for the feedback David. On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 11:27, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > You've written "was" (past tense), but then the existing text uses > "will" (future tense). I guess if the point in time is after parse and > before work has been done, then that's correct, but I think using "is" > instead of "was" is better.
> Maybe "are also vacuumed" instead of "are vacuumed" is more clear? Agreed. I have updated my patch with both of these suggestions. > 4. A very minor detail, but I think in vacuum.c the WARNING you've > added should use RelationGetRelationName(). We seem to be very > inconsistent with using that macro and I see it's not used just above > for the lock warning, which I imagine you copied. As far as I can tell RelationGetRelationName is for extracting the name from a Relation struct, but in this case we have a RangeVar so it doesn't appear to be applicable. I could not find an equivalent access macro for RangeVar. Thanks again. Cheers Mike
v4-0001-Implementation-of-the-ONLY-feature.patch
Description: Binary data
