From Friday, September 10, 2021 1:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 8:54 AM Hou zhijie <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > From Friday, September 10, 2021 10:33 AM Hou > Zhijie<houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > Besides, If we don't want to use a new flag to distinguish tablename and > schemaname, > > We can only check the NodeTag to distinguish the difference. > > > > Attach two diff patches based on the latest schema patch > > which change the code with a flag and without a flag. > > > > I would prefer a version without additional flags unless you think it > is difficult to extend it in the future for other objects like > sequences which as far as I can see shouldn't be the case.
Ok, I agreed.
> Is there a
> reason to define pubobj_name similar to any_name? If so, then please
> do add the comments. One reason I could think of is that any_name is
> not used for schema names currently which might have motivated you to
> define a separate naming convention for publication.
When I used any_name, Bison reported that the dot('.') in rule attr
would have a shift/reduce conflict with the dot('.') in rule indirection_el
which also used in pubobj_expr. So, I declared a new rule which will directly
use indirection_el to resolve the conflicts.
Attach the without-flag version and add comments about the pubobj_name.
Best regards,
Hou zj
refactor-without-flag_patch
Description: refactor-without-flag_patch
