Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 22:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Maybe I would group together the changes that all require the same version
>> test, rather than keeping the output columns in the same order.
> I agree with that, if we're doing all this we might as well go all the wa
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 22:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Maybe I would group together the changes that all require the same version
>> test, rather than keeping the output columns in the same order.
> I agree with that, if we're doing all this we might as well go all the wa
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 22:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Attached is a proposed patch that refactors getTables() along the
>> same lines as some previous work (eg 047329624, ed2c7f65b, daa9fe8a5)
>> to avoid having multiple partially-redundant copies of the SQL
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Yeah, this seems a lot better than the original coding. Maybe I would
> group together the changes that all require the same version test,
> rather than keeping the output columns in the same order. This reduces
> the number of branches. Because the follow-on code uses
On 2021-Oct-16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Attached is a proposed patch that refactors getTables() along the
> same lines as some previous work (eg 047329624, ed2c7f65b, daa9fe8a5)
> to avoid having multiple partially-redundant copies of the SQL query.
> This gets rid of nearly 300 lines of duplicative spa
