| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Alex Guo <guo(dot)alex(dot)hengchen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix DROP PROPERTY GRAPH "unsupported object class" error |
| Date: | 2026-06-18 05:41:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5uLk2gbyiE9aLpV3YLiM9Pb78GT+mbddjxB5_-SmpsOFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:44 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 04:30:24PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > The term "element" comes later "label v1 of element v1". There's
> > nothing in the standard called "element label". That term is an
> > artifact of our implementation. I think "label v1 of element v1" reads
> > better and follows the standard compared to "element label v1 of
> > element v1".
>
> [ ... checks 9075-16-2023 ... ]
>
> The term is "element table label" when referring to a clause, and most
> of the places refer to only "label", so I guess that I'm fine with
> your wording here.
> --
> Michael
Thanks for the confirmation.
Since the original bug, which led to creating a PG 19 open item, is
fixed I am moving the open item to the resolved section.
IIUC, the follow-on discussion seems to have concluded and Michael is
fine with the last version of patch. It feels like we need to commit
that patch. Michael, are you going to commit it or do you expect
somebody else to do it?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-06-18 05:44:34 | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2026-06-18 05:36:31 | Re: pgbench --continue-on-error: clarify TPS and failure reporting |