On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:39 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 09:34:51AM +0800, Andy Fan wrote: > > > > > Other than that I wanted to ask what are the plans to proceed with this > > > patch? It's been a while since the question was raised in which format > > > to keep unique key expressions, and as far as I can see no detailed > > > suggestions or patch changes were proposed as a follow up. Obviously I > > > would love to see the first two preparation patches committed to avoid > > > dependencies between patches, and want to suggest an incremental > > > approach with simple format for start (what we have right now) with the > > > idea how to extend it in the future to cover more cases. > > > > > > > I think the hardest part of this series is commit 2, it probably needs > > lots of > > dedicated time to review which would be the hardest part for the > reviewers. > > I don't have a good suggestion, however. > > Sure, and I would review the patch as well. Thank you very much! > But as far as I understand > the main issue is "how to store uniquekey expressions", and as long as > it is not decided, no additional review will move the patch forward I > guess. > I don't think so:) The patch may have other issues as well. For example, logic error or duplicated code or cases needing improvement and so on. -- Best Regards Andy Fan
