On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 05:03:29PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yeah, I'm OK on that, but that's not really the problem here. This is
> not a case where a later step in a complex DDL command needs to see what
> an earlier step did. This is about that something later in the
> transaction needs to see what happened earlier in the transaction. This
> does not seem to be the job of each individual DDL command; they don't
> know what someone later might want to look at. Otherwise many DDL
> command implementations are lacking this CCI. I think the CCI should be
> more like at the end of ProcessUtility().
Not all utility commands need a CCI, for example take VACUUM.
--
Michael