On 13.01.26 17:14, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 3:53 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have a small fixup patch for your 20260102 patches, attached.
>>
>> - needs additional #include because of recent changes elsewhere
>> - copyright year updates
>> - various typos
>> - some style changes related to palloc APIs
>
> All changes look good.
>
> Looks like you have reviewed patches 0002-onwards. I removed 0004
> which was erroneously removing the | handling from ecpg lexer as you
> pointed out earlier. Squashed all other patches along with your small
> fixup patch. Attached is the resultant single patch.
I have studied a bit the changes in parse_relation.c with the additional
relkind checks. That didn't look clean to me. I have attached here a
patch that does it differently, by *not* accepting RELKIND_PROPGRAPH in
table_open(). Instead, we write our own alternative to
parserOpenTable() to use in the parser. This ends up even giving some
better error messages. The only other change is that in
AcquireRewriteLocks() we need to use relation_open() instead of
table_open(), but that seems harmless and even intellectually better,
because at that point we don't care about giving anyone a user-facing
error message about wrong relkinds, we just want to lock the ones we
have. (Alternatively, we could make a separate switch case for
RTE_GRAPH_TABLE.)
What do you think?
Also, see this patch:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6d3fef19-a420-4e11-8235-8ea534bf2080%40eisentraut.org
If this is accepted, it would make the change in the patch here even
smaller.
And then there is this patch:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4bcd65fb-2497-484c-bb41-83cb435eb64d%40eisentraut.org
which also grew out of this analysis.
