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
20 matches
Mail list logo
