| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TYPE 2: skip already-provable no-work rewrites |
| Date: | 2011-01-27 19:48:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20110127194835.GA11906@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:31:40AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'd also suggest that this big if-block you changed to a case
> statement could just as well stay as an if-block. There are only
> three cases, and we want to avoid rearranging things more than
> necessary. It complicates both review and back-patching to no good
> end.
Okay. I've also left out the large reindent in ATRewriteTable for now. Easy to
re-add it later if desired.
> I think you should collect up what's left of ALTER TABLE 0 and the
> stuff on this thread, rebase it, and submit it as a single patch on
> this thread that applies directly against the master branch. We may
> decide to split it back up again in some other way, but I think the
> current division isn't actually buying us much.
Done as attached. This preserves compatibility with our current handling of
composite type dependencies. The rest you've seen before.
Thanks,
nm
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| at0,2v4-skip-nowork.patch | text/plain | 46.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-01-27 21:24:18 | Re: Re: In pg_test_fsync, use K(1024) rather than k(1000) for write size units. |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-01-27 19:33:21 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |