From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys |
Date: | 2019-12-25 00:33:28 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFPFTz0GugX_gUG_S8dzEfn5wuqqhW5-VCAW7iyGVLszg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 2:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> BTW, I forgot to mention: while I think the patch to forbid pseudotypes
> >> by using CheckAttributeType() can be back-patched, I'm leaning towards
> >> not back-patching the other patch. The situation where we get into
> >> infinite recursion seems not very likely in practice, and it's not
> >> going to cause any crash or data loss, so I think we can just say
> >> "sorry that's not supported before v13". The patch as I'm proposing
> >> it seems rather invasive for a back-branch fix.
>
> > It is indeed.
>
> > Just to be sure, by going with "unsupported before v13", which one do you mean:
>
> > * documenting it as so
> > * giving an error in such cases, like the patch in the first email on
> > this thread did
> > * doing nothing really
>
> I was thinking "do nothing in the back branches". I don't believe we
> can detect such cases reliably (at least not without complicated logic,
> which'd defeat the point), so I don't think giving an error is actually
> feasible, and I doubt that documenting it would be useful. If we get
> some field complaints about this, it'd be time enough to reconsider.
Sure, thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-25 01:26:40 | Re: Should we rename amapi.h and amapi.c? |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2019-12-24 23:14:41 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |