> On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Mark Dilger <mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I like 0007 quite a bit and am inclined to commit it soon, as it >> doesn't depend on the earlier patches. But: >> >> - I think the residual comment in processSQLNamePattern beginning with >> "Note:" could use some wordsmithing to account for the new structure >> of things -- maybe just "this pass" -> "this function". >> - I suggest changing initializations like maxbuf = buf + 2 to maxbuf = >> &buf[2] for clarity. > > Ok, I should be able to get you an updated version of 0007 with those changes > here soon for you to commit.
I made those changes, and fixed a bug that would impact the pg_amcheck callers. I'll have to extend the regression test coverage in 0008 since it obviously wasn't caught, but that's not part of this patch since there are no callers that use the dbname.schema.relname format as yet. This is the only patch for v34, since you want to commit it separately. It's renamed as 0001 here....
v34-0001-Refactoring-processSQLNamePattern.patch
Description: Binary data
— Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
