Re: Fix DROP PROPERTY GRAPH "unsupported object class" error

On 07.05.26 03:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 10:38:32AM +0800, Alex Guo wrote:
>> On 5/5/26 2:00 PM, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 06:01:22PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>> I think we should just eliminate it
>>>> from the result just like we are eliminating the rule. There is slight
>>>> convenience in keeping the query as is - it need not change even
>>>> though the columns returned by the function change and it's more
>>>> readable. I also think that we don't need a type defined for a
>>>> property graph - it doesn't contain any row as well as the shape of
>>>> the result of GRAPH_TABLE depends upon the COLUMNS clause - so that's
>>>> not fixed as well. I will start a separate thread for that
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Yeah, now that 891a57c7394 is in, PFA a new version of the patch. This is just
>>> a mandatory rebase and the COLLATE "C" removals.
>
> In order to move the needle, I have applied the simplification of
> getObjectDescription() as an independent piece.
>
> Label properties lead to part descriptions like that:
> + property graph label property | | | k1 of e of e of
> create_property_graph_tests.gt
> + property graph label property | | | k2 of e of e of
> create_property_graph_tests.gt
>
> This is confusing and hard to act on for the reader, with the same
> object name defined twice (worse matter: twice in a row). For the
> reader, is the first "e" something different than the second? Do both
> refer to the same object? Do they refer to different sub-objects
> instead but named the same because the implementation dictates so?
> This could gain in clarity.
>
> This has been mentioned upthread. But, while reviewing the rest, I am
> really puzzled by your choice of "property graph element label
> property" over "property graph label property", which is inconsistent
> with the catalog description. We usually try to be careful about the
> wordings of the descriptions with the statis data in objectaddress.c,
> and the extra "element" feels out of place to me.
>
> I'll let Peter comment about these points, but it really looks like
> the intention of the catalog leads to a result closer to the attached
> (leaving the label property description aside for a minute).
>
> Attaching a rebased v7 with the remaining pieces.

I have committed the v7 patch with two additional fixes: 1) Removed the
translation markers from the getObjectIdentityParts additions, these are
not supposed to be translated; and 2) added the new cases to ObjectTypeMap.