| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: The command tag of "ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW RENAME COLUMN" |
| Date: | 2019-11-05 05:39:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwG33BXRVGdA1ars0TV53ad=M85jVmSOkVKzZvbM+q3ADw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 4:40 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:17:03PM +0500, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> > Do we really need a regression test cases for such small oversights?
>
> It is possible to get the command tags using an event trigger... But
> that sounds hack-ish.
Yes, so if simple test mechanism to check command tag exists,
it would be helpful.
I'm thinking to commit the patch. But I have one question; is it ok to
back-patch? Since the patch changes the command tags for some commands,
for example, which might break the existing event trigger functions
using TG_TAG if we back-patch it. Or we should guarantee the compatibility of
command tag within the same major version?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-05 05:58:51 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-11-05 05:38:02 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |