| From: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two |
| Date: | 2025-08-15 07:36:00 |
| Message-ID: | CALdSSPjdmR8cqmbO=qnuczX=POR_gvtw3nzcBavZqoPq7yyRqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 10:47, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 01:50:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Rebased as v15, following a report from the CI that the new pg_dump
> > command in the TAP tests needed a --with-statistics switch, like its
> > relatives.
>
> v16 rebased, conflict with naming of pg_dump option --statistics vs
> --with-statistics.
> --
> Michael
Hi!
0001 - LGTM?
0002. WFM, the sole observation I have is that we incorporate sequence
logic to AlterTable utilities, making it less clear of what they
actually do.
I see we already have code path handling CREATE VIEW (in
AlterTableGetLockLevel for example), so maybe it is worth renaming
AlterTable* to AlterRelation*?
It would be really invasive refactoring though, so maybe we should
ignore this slight inconsistency in function names and what they
actually do.
Otherwise LGTM.
I did not review the new 0003-0007 series. Will try to find the time
to do this.
--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-08-15 08:09:50 | Re: memory leak in logical WAL sender with pgoutput's cachectx |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-08-15 07:15:38 | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |