From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some RELKIND macro refactoring |
Date: | 2021-11-24 04:20:29 |
Message-ID: | YZ29jR3gK1LqNPpq@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:21:52AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 19.11.21 08:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Regarding 0001, I find the existing code a bit more self-documenting
>> if we keep those checks flagInhAttrs() and guessConstraintInheritance().
>> So I would rather leave these.
>
> In that case, the existing check in guessConstraintInheritance() seems
> wrong, because it doesn't check for RELKIND_MATVIEW. Should we fix that?
> It's dead code either way, but if the code isn't exercises, then these kinds
> of inconsistency come about.
Yeah, this one could be added. Perhaps that comes down to one's taste
at the end, but I would add it.
> Maybe
>
> else
> {
> Assert(RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(rel->rd_rel->relkind);
> RelationCreateStorage(rel->rd_node, relpersistence);
> }
>
> create_storage is set earlier based on RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(), so this would
> be consistent.
Sounds fine by me. Perhaps you should apply the same style in
RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork(), then?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-24 04:27:13 | RE: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-11-24 04:19:32 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |