From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_get_constraintdef: Schema qualify foreign tables unless pretty printing is enabled |
Date: | 2022-10-12 05:19:25 |
Message-ID: | Y0ZOXb8bMcM0mDC7@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:48:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do, rather than repeat the same finicky &
> undocumented coding pattern in one more place, is write a convenience
> function for it that can be named and documented to reflect the coding
> rule about which call sites should use it (rather than calling plain
> generate_relation_name). However, the first requirement for that
> is to have a clearly defined rule. I think the intent of 815172ba8068
> was to convert all uses that would determine the object-creation schema
> in commands issued by pg_dump. Do we want to widen that, and if so
> by how much? I'd be on board I think with adjusting other ruleutils.c
> functions that could plausibly be used for building creation commands,
> but happen not to be called by pg_dump. I'm not on board with
> converting every single generate_relation_name call --- mainly because
> it'd be pointless unless you also qualify every single function name,
> operator name, etc; and that would be unreadable.
Lukas, please note that this patch is waiting for your input for a few
weeks now. Could you reply to the reviews provided?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:20:43 | Re: Fix gin index cost estimation |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:17:53 | Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors |