From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type |
Date: | 2018-02-15 21:35:18 |
Message-ID: | 20180215213518.5btgsjhbjxlolife@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от 15 февраля 2018 12:53:27 пользователь Alvaro Herrera написал:
> So I would prefer to keep it untested while we are done with reloptions, and
> then test it in a good way, with creating dummy index and so on. I think it
> will be needed for more tests and educational purposes...
>
> But if you will insist on it as a reviewer, I will do as you say.
No, I don't, but let's make sure that there really is a test module
closer to the end of the patch series.
> > Oh, I didn't mean to steer you away from a C enum. I just meant that we
> > don't need to define the numerical values ourselves -- it should be fine
> > to use whatever the C compiler chooses for each C symbol (enum member
> > name). In the code we don't refer to the values by numerical value,
> > only by the C symbol.
>
> Ah that is what you are talking about :-)
>
> I needed this numbers for debug purposes, nothing more. If it is not good to
> keep them, they can be removed now...
> (I would prefer to keep them for further debugging, but if it is not right, I
> can easily remove them, I do not need them right now)
I'd like to give this deeper review to have a better opinion on this.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-02-15 21:55:25 | Re: FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-02-15 20:00:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently |