On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > What do you think about adding a test with DETACH FINALIZE when > attempting it on a normal table, its path being under a different > subcommand than DETACH [CONCURRENTLY]? > > There are no tests for normal tables with DETACH CONCURRENTLY, but as > it is the same as DETACH under the AT_DetachPartition subcommand, that > does not seem worth the extra cycles.
Added an extra test for the CONCURRENTLY case at the end, and applied the simplification. Hmm. Should we replace the error messages in transformPartitionCmd() with some assertions at this stage? I don't see a high cost in keeping these even now, and keeping errors is perhaps more useful for some extension code that builds AT_AttachPartition or AT_DetachPartition commands? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
