On 23.11.21 16:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
In init_fork(), there's a typo:
+* For tables, the AM callback creates both the main and the init fork.
should read:
+* For tables, the AM callback creates both the main and the init forks.
I believe the original wording is correct.
Ov
On 24.11.21 05:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:21:52AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 19.11.21 08:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
Regarding 0001, I find the existing code a bit more self-documenting
if we keep those checks flagInhAttrs() and guessConstraintInheritance().
So
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:21:52AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 19.11.21 08:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Regarding 0001, I find the existing code a bit more self-documenting
>> if we keep those checks flagInhAttrs() and guessConstraintInheritance().
>> So I would rather leave these.
>
> In
On 2021-Nov-23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Maybe
> >
> > else
> > {
> > Assert(RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(rel->rd_rel->relkind);
> > RelationCreateStorage(rel->rd_node, relpersistence);
> > }
> >
> > create_storage is set earlier b
On 2021-Nov-22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Maybe
>
> else
> {
> Assert(RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(rel->rd_rel->relkind);
> RelationCreateStorage(rel->rd_node, relpersistence);
> }
>
> create_storage is set earlier based on RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(), so this would
> be consistent.
On 2021-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I think that you should keep this block as it is now. The part where
> a relkind does not support table AMs and does not require storage
> would get uncovered, and this new code would just attempt to create
> storage, so it seems to me that the existing co
On 19.11.21 08:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 07:28:16AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Small rebase of this patch set.
Regarding 0001, I find the existing code a bit more self-documenting
if we keep those checks flagInhAttrs() and guessConstraintInheritance().
So I would
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 07:28:16AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Small rebase of this patch set.
Regarding 0001, I find the existing code a bit more self-documenting
if we keep those checks flagInhAttrs() and guessConstraintInheritance().
So I would rather leave these.
I like 0002, which ma
aut
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:09:50 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] Some RELKIND macro refactoring
Add more macros to group some RELKIND_* macros:
- RELKIND_HAS_PARTITIONS()
- RELKIND_HAS_TABLESPACE()
- RELKIND_HAS_TABLE_AM()
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/a574c8f1-9c84-93ad
ntinue;
-
- /* Don't bother computing anything for non-target tables,
either */
+ /* Don't bother computing anything for non-target tables */
if (!(tbinfo->dobj.dump & DUMP_COMPONENT_DEFINITION))
continue;
--
2.33.0
From 9fc
On 2021-Aug-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > While analyzing this again, I think I found an existing mistake. The
> > handling of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX in RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork()
> > seems to be misplaced. See attach
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While analyzing this again, I think I found an existing mistake. The
> handling of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX in RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork()
> seems to be misplaced. See attached patch.
Right. This maps with RELKIND_HAS_ST
While analyzing this again, I think I found an existing mistake. The
handling of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX in
RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork() seems to be misplaced. See attached
patch.
From 652d10eaf00aafb91c6f60149b04be90a33e5acb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Tue, 2
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:22:50AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Partitioned tables are not listed here, but IIRC there's a patch to let
> partitioned tables have a table AM so that their partitions inherit it.
This was raised in the thread for ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD (see
patch 0002):
http
On 2021-Aug-16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_INDEX ||
> + rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_SEQUENCE)
> + RelationCreateStorage(rel->rd_node, relpersistence);
> + else if (RELKIND_HAS_TABLE_AM(rel->rd_
info->dobj.dump & DUMP_COMPONENT_DEFINITION))
continue;
--
2.32.0
From 0656f3959518bfa1bd03e8bea3028ccf69b1edad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:30:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v1 2/2] Some RELKIND macro refactoring
Add more macros to grou
16 matches
Mail list logo
