On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:37 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> Here is the patch v7. Thanks!
>
LGTM. I'll push this sometime early next week unless there are more
suggestions/comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Here is the patch v7. Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 7:39 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > +errmsg("cannot operate on relation \"%s\"",
> >
> > Other callers of errdetail_relkind_not_supported() describi
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 7:39 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> +errmsg("cannot operate on relation \"%s\"",
>
> Other callers of errdetail_relkind_not_supported() describing
> operations concretely. In that sense we I think should say "cannot
> open relation \"%s\""
Hi.
+errmsg("cannot operate on relation \"%s\"",
Other callers of errdetail_relkind_not_supported() describing
operations concretely. In that sense we I think should say "cannot
open relation \"%s\"" here.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software
LGTM
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:52 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Junwang,
>
> > btw, there are some typos in Patch v5, %s/ralation/relation/g
>
> D'oh!
>
> > yeah, IMHO validate_relation_kind() is better ;)
>
> Cool. Here is the corrected patch. Thanks!
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander
Hi Junwang,
> btw, there are some typos in Patch v5, %s/ralation/relation/g
D'oh!
> yeah, IMHO validate_relation_kind() is better ;)
Cool. Here is the corrected patch. Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v6-0001-Eliminate-duplicate-code-in-table.c.patch
Description: Binary data
btw, there are some typos in Patch v5, %s/ralation/relation/g
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:05 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> > Yeah, that's better. On again thinking about the function name, I
> > wonder if validate_relation_type() suits here as there is no generic
> > object being
yeah, IMHO validate_relation_kind() is better ;)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:21 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> > Yep, validate_relation_type() sounds better.
>
> Or maybe validate_relation_kind() after all?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander Alekseev
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
Hi Amit,
> Yep, validate_relation_type() sounds better.
Or maybe validate_relation_kind() after all?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
Hi Amit,
> Yeah, that's better. On again thinking about the function name, I
> wonder if validate_relation_type() suits here as there is no generic
> object being passed?
Yep, validate_relation_type() sounds better.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v5-0001-Eliminate-duplicate-code-in-tabl
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:12 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> > Hmm, but see commit 2ed532ee8c47 about this kind of check. Perhaps we
> > should change these error messages to conform to the same message style.
>
> Good point! Done.
>
Yeah, that's better. On again thinking about
Hi Alvaro,
> Hmm, but see commit 2ed532ee8c47 about this kind of check. Perhaps we
> should change these error messages to conform to the same message style.
Good point! Done.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v4-0001-Eliminate-duplicate-code-in-table.c.patch
Description: Binary data
On 2022-Jul-21, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> There are some duplicate code in table.c, add a static inline function
> to eliminate the duplicates.
Hmm, but see commit 2ed532ee8c47 about this kind of check. Perhaps we
should change these error messages to conform to the same message style.
--
Álvaro H
Hi Amit,
> I don't think this change should be part of this patch. Do you see a
> reason for doing this?
My bad. I thought this was done by pgindent.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v3-0001-Eliminate-duplicate-code-in-table.c.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:09 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> > > There are some duplicate code in table.c, add a static inline function
> > > to eliminate the duplicates.
> > >
> >
> > Can we name function as validate_object_type, or check_object_type?
> >
> > Otherwise, the patch looks fine to
Hi hackers,
> > There are some duplicate code in table.c, add a static inline function
> > to eliminate the duplicates.
> >
>
> Can we name function as validate_object_type, or check_object_type?
>
> Otherwise, the patch looks fine to me. Let's see if others have
> something to say.
LGTM
--
Bes
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:56 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> There are some duplicate code in table.c, add a static inline function
> to eliminate the duplicates.
>
Can we name function as validate_object_type, or check_object_type?
Otherwise, the patch looks fine to me. Let's see if others have
some
There are some duplicate code in table.c, add a static inline function
to eliminate the duplicates.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
0001-eliminate-duplicate-code-in-table.c.patch
Description: Binary data
18 matches
Mail list logo