| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2022-07-31 04:11:36 |
| Message-ID: | YuYA+APfGICHH0RV@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2022-07-31 06:17:47 | Re: Race between KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() and restartpoint |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-07-31 03:49:39 | Re: [PATCH] Add extra statistics to explain for Nested Loop |