On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 1:01 AM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 13:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > There is a mix of upper and lower-case characters here. It could be
> > more consistent. It seems to me that this test should actually check
> > that pg_class.relam reflects the new value.
>
> Done. I also added a (negative) test for changing the AM of a
> partitioned table, which wasn't caught before.
>
> > + errmsg("cannot have multiple SET ACCESS METHOD
> > subcommands")));
> > Worth adding a test?
>
> Done.
>
> > Nit: the name of the variable looks inconsistent with this comment.
> > The original is weird as well.
>
> Tried to improve wording.
>
> > I am wondering if it would be a good idea to set the new tablespace
> > and new access method fields to InvalidOid within
> > ATGetQueueEntry. We
> > do that for the persistence. Not critical at all, still..
>
> Done.
>
> > + pass = AT_PASS_MISC;
> > Maybe add a comment here?
>
> Done. In that case, it doesn't matter because there's no work to be
> done in Phase 2.
>
There are few compilation issues:
tablecmds.c:4629:52: error: too few arguments to function call,
expected 3, have 2
ATSimplePermissions(rel, ATT_TABLE | ATT_MATVIEW);
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
tablecmds.c:402:1: note: 'ATSimplePermissions' declared here
static void ATSimplePermissions(AlterTableType cmdtype, Relation rel,
int allowed_targets);
^
tablecmds.c:5983:10: warning: enumeration value 'AT_SetAccessMethod'
not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
switch (cmdtype)
^
1 warning and 1 error generated.
Also few comments need to be addressed, based on that I'm changing the
status to "Waiting for Author".
Regards,
Vignesh
