From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Collect ObjectAddress for ATTACH DETACH PARTITION to use in event trigger |
Date: | 2022-08-01 03:33:44 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB5716078F452F8EF11D29807F949A9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday, July 31, 2022 12:12 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 01:13:52PM +0000, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > I am not against returning the objaddr for cases related to RLS and
> RelOption.
> > But just to confirm, do you have a use case to use the returned
> > address(relation itself) for RLS or RelOptions in event trigger ? I
> > asked this because when I tried to deparse the subcommand of ALTER
> > TABLE. It seems enough to use the information inside the parse tree to
> deparse the RLS and RelOptions related subcommands.
>
> You are right here, there is little point in returning the relation itself. I have
> removed these modifications, added a couple of extra commands for some
> extra coverage, and applied all that. I have finished by splitting the extension
> of test_ddl_deparse/ and the addition of ObjectAddress for the attach/detach
> into their own commit, mainly for clarity.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Hou Zhijie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2022-08-01 03:51:05 | Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-08-01 02:16:21 | Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns |