From: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Re: pg_identify_object_as_address() doesn't support pg_event_trigger oids |
Date: | 2021-04-27 12:33:36 |
Message-ID: | 466796f7-be5c-4326-b102-b575f26ce019@www.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, at 09:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 07:16:25AM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> > I've added a test at the end of event_trigger.sql,
> > reusing the three event triggers already in existence,
> > just before they are dropped.
>
> Cool, thanks. I have been looking at it and I'd still like to
> cross-check the output data of pg_get_object_address() to see if
> pg_identify_object() remains consistent through it. See for example
> the attached that uses a trick based on LATERAL, a bit different than
> what's done in object_address.sql but that gives the same amount of
> coverage (I could also use two ROW()s and an equality, but well..).
Neat trick, looks good to me.
I've successfully tested fix_event_trigger_pg_identify_object_as_address3.patch.
/Joel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-27 12:37:00 | RE: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN() |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2021-04-27 12:31:08 | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |