Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
Date
Msg-id 20160404215503.GA237481@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'  (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
List pgsql-hackers
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2016-03-29 10:15:51 -0400, david@pgmasters.net wrote:
> >
> > Either way it looks like you need to post a patch with more
> > documentation - do you know when you'll have that ready?
>
> Here it is.
>
> (I was actually looking for other potential callers, but I couldn't find
> any. There are some places that take a RangeVar and make a list from it,
> but they are creating new nodes, and don't quite fit. So the only change
> in this patch is to add a comment above the get_object_address_rv
> function.)

I gave this another look.  To test whether the grammar is good, I tried
a few additional object cases.  They all seem to work fine, provided
that we use the same production for the object name as in the
corresponding ALTER <foo> case for the object.  The attached is simply
an extension with those new grammar rules -- I didn't go beyond ensuring
the new productions didn't cause any conflicts.  (I also removed the new
includes in alter.c, which are no longer necessary AFAICS.)

At this point I think we're missing user-level docs for the additional
clause in each ALTER command.  I think it's a fiddly business, because
each individual ALTER page is going to need to be touched for the new
clause, but that can't be avoided.

Do you have any ideas on how this would appear in regression tests?

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: Timeline following for logical slots
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [CommitFest App] Feature request -- review e-mail additions