| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tablecmds: clarify recurse vs recusing |
| Date: | 2026-01-20 20:07:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1734390.1768939652@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Enhancing the header comments also helps here.
> PSA v2:
I had something more like the attached in mind. I'm not generally
a fan of documenting only some of the arguments of a function, so
I don't care for the way you handled the issue for other functions
in tablecmds.c either. We can either assume that people read
ATPrepCmd's comment and can extrapolate to the other functions,
or we can do something similar to this for all of them.
I do agree with your 0002, but I see no point in pushing that
separately.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-document-ATPrepCmd-arguments.patch | text/x-diff | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2026-01-20 20:08:23 | Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-01-20 20:02:33 | Can we remove support for standard_conforming_strings = off yet? |