On 9/25/21 12:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Sep-24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
But that's not the column filtering patch, right? Why would this patch
depend on "schema level support", but maybe the consensus is there's some
common part that we need to get in first?
Yes, the grammar needs to be common. I posted a proposed grammar in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109241325.eag5g6mpvoup%40alvherre.pgsql
(this thread) which should serve both. I forgot to test the addition of
a WHERE clause for row filtering, though, and I didn't think to look at
adding SEQUENCE support either.
Fine with me, but I still don't know which version of the column
filtering patch should I look at ... maybe there's none up to date, at
the moment?
(I'm not sure what's going to be the proposal regarding FOR ALL TABLES
IN SCHEMA for sequences. Are we going to have "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN
SCHEMA" and "FOR ALL TABLES AND SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?)
Should be "FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN SCHEMA" of course ;-)
On a more serious note, a comma-separated list of objects seems like the
best / most flexible choice, i.e. "FOR TABLES, SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
