Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength
От | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3f88a8eb-7893-7f6c-6a06-9a21852a34a7@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength
Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 31.03.2020 23:45, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Still haven't got a better naming idea, but in the meantime here's >> a rebase to fix a conflict with 612a1ab76. Maybe "amadjustmembers" will work? I've looked through the patch and noticed this comment: + default: + /* Probably we should throw error here */ + break; I suggest adding an ERROR or maybe Assert, so that future developers wouldn't forget about setting dependencies. Other than that, the patch looks good to me. -- Anastasia Lubennikova Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: