From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Collect ObjectAddress for ATTACH DETACH PARTITION to use in event trigger |
Date: | 2022-07-23 10:58:01 |
Message-ID: | YtvUObxj22+dtoEO@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 05:44:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Changing get_altertable_subcmdtypes() to return a set of rows made of
> (subcommand, object description) is what I actually meant upthread as
> it feels natural given a CollectedCommand in input, and as
> pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() only gives access to a set of
> CollectedCommands. This is also a test module so
> there is no issue in changing the existing function definitions.
>
> But your point would be to have a new function that takes in input a
> CollectedATSubcmd, returning back the object address or its
> description? How would you make sure that a subcommand maps to a
> correct object address?
FWIW, I was thinking about something among the lines of 0002 on top of
Hou's patch.
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Collect-ObjectAddress-for-ATTACH-DETACH-PARTITION.patch | text/x-diff | 2.0 KB |
v2-0002-Extend-test_ddl_deparse-for-ALTER-TABLE-.-ATTACH-.patch | text/x-diff | 10.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-07-23 10:58:31 | Re: Refactoring the regression tests for more independence |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-07-23 09:58:19 | Re: Use "WAL segment" instead of "log segment" consistently in user-facing messages |