On Sunday, July 31, 2022 12:12 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 01:13:52PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > I am not against returning the objaddr for cases related to RLS and
> RelOption.
> > But just to confirm, do you have a use case to use the returned
> > address
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 01:13:52PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> I am not against returning the objaddr for cases related to RLS and RelOption.
> But just to confirm, do you have a use case to use the returned
> address(relation itself)
> for RLS or RelOptions in event trigger ? I asked t
On Saturday, July 30, 2022 3:15 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:00:41PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed the default and found some
> > missed subcommands in 0003 patch. Attach the new version patch here
> > (The 0001 and 000
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:00:41PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed the default and found some missed
> subcommands in 0003 patch. Attach the new version patch here
> (The 0001 and 0002 is unchanged).
I have reviewed what you have here, and I found t
On Monday, July 25, 2022 6:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 09:25:07AM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > BTW, while reviewing it, I found there are some more subcommands that
> > the
> > get_altertable_subcmdtypes() doesn't handle(e.g., ADD/DROP/SET
> > IDENTITY and
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 09:25:07AM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> BTW, while reviewing it, I found there are some more subcommands that the
> get_altertable_subcmdtypes() doesn't handle(e.g., ADD/DROP/SET IDENTITY and
> re ADD
> STAT). Shall we fix them all while on it ?
>
> Attach a mino
On 2022-Jul-25, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> BTW, while reviewing it, I found there are some more subcommands that the
> get_altertable_subcmdtypes() doesn't handle(e.g., ADD/DROP/SET IDENTITY and
> re ADD
> STAT). Shall we fix them all while on it ?
>
> Attach a minor patch to fix those whic
On Saturday, July 23, 2022 6:58 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 05:44:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Changing get_altertable_subcmdtypes() to return a set of rows made of
> > (subcommand, object description) is what I actually meant upthread as
> > it feels natural g
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 08:42:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> What I intended to say is similar to what you have done in the patch
> but in a new function. OTOH, your point that it is okay to change
> function signature/name in the test module seems reasonable to me.
Thanks. Let's do with the fu
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 05:44:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Changing get_altertable_subcmdtypes() to return a set of rows made of
> > (subcommand, object description) is what I actually meant upthread as
> > it feels natural given
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 05:44:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Changing get_altertable_subcmdtypes() to return a set of rows made of
> (subcommand, object description) is what I actually meant upthread as
> it feels natural given a CollectedCommand in input, and as
> pg_event_trigger_ddl_comman
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:26:02PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah, that would be a good idea but I think instead of changing
> get_altertable_subcmdtypes(), can we have a new function say
> get_altertable_subcmdinfo() that returns additional information from
> address. The other alternative could
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:53 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:36:13PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Right. But, I noticed that get_altertable_subcmdtypes() doesn't handle
> > AT_AttachPartition or AT_DetachPartition. We can handle those and at
> > least have a test for tho
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:36:13PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Right. But, I noticed that get_altertable_subcmdtypes() doesn't handle
> AT_AttachPartition or AT_DetachPartition. We can handle those and at
> least have a test for those in test_ddl_deparse\sql\slter_table.sql. I
> know it is not dire
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:39 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 15, 2022 11:41 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:21:30AM +, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > Sounds good. I grepped ATExecXXX() functions called in ATExecCmd(),
> > > an
Dear Hou-san,
> Thanks for having a look. It was a bit difficult to add a test for this.
> Because we currently don't have a user function which can return these
> collected ObjectAddresses for ALTER TABLE. And It seems we don't have tests
> for
> already collected ObjectAddresses as well :(
> Th
On Friday, July 15, 2022 11:41 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:21:30AM +, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Sounds good. I grepped ATExecXXX() functions called in ATExecCmd(),
> > and I confirmed that all returned values have been collected except them.
> >
>
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:21:30AM +, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Sounds good. I grepped ATExecXXX() functions called in ATExecCmd(),
> and I confirmed that all returned values have been collected except them.
>
> While checking test code test about EVENT TRIGGER,
> I found there were n
Hi,
> > I noticed that we didn't collect the ObjectAddress returned by
> > ATExec[Attach|Detach]Partition. I think collecting this information can
> > make it
> > easier for users to get the partition OID of the attached or detached table
> > in
> > the event trigger. So how about collecting it
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 5:58 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> I noticed that we didn't collect the ObjectAddress returned by
> ATExec[Attach|Detach]Partition. I think collecting this information can make
> it
> easier for users to get the partition OID of the attached or detached table
Hi hackers,
I noticed that we didn't collect the ObjectAddress returned by
ATExec[Attach|Detach]Partition. I think collecting this information can make it
easier for users to get the partition OID of the attached or detached table in
the event trigger. So how about collecting it like the attached
21 matches
Mail list logo
