| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Alex Guo <guo(dot)alex(dot)hengchen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix DROP PROPERTY GRAPH "unsupported object class" error |
| Date: | 2026-06-10 05:19:27 |
| Message-ID: | aijzu0Wsv736_NuS@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 09:28:56AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Here's a patch fixing it.
Based on the definitions of pglpgid/pgepgid/pgppgid (property graph
relations), pgelelid (property graph element) and plpellabelid
(property graph element label), that looks better. I am still puzzled
regarding the choice of "label" in the patch for plpellabelid while it
is an "element label" based on the way it is stored in its catalog,
with the catalog matching the object being named "property graph
element label".
There may be a point in suffixing all these objects with a set of
"property graph" strings, but perhaps you are right in limiting the
length of the output without these. Talking about "element" and
"element label" (not "label"!) would be good enough here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-06-10 05:21:14 | Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete tupDesc assignment in extended statistics |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2026-06-10 05:12:26 | RE: Reject negative max_retention_duration values |