On 08.02.24 07:04, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> The patch looks ok.
>
> + seqstmt->sequence->relpersistence = cxt->rel ?
> cxt->rel->rd_rel->relpersistence : cxt->relation->relpersistence;
> +
>
> This condition looks consistent with the other places in the code
> around line 435, 498.
Ah good, that pattern already existed.
> But I was worried that cxt->rel may not get
> latest relpersistence if the ALTER TABLE changes persistence as well.
> Added a test (0002) which shows that ctx->rel has up-to-date
> relpersistence. Also added a few other tests. Feel free to
> include/reject them while committing.
Yes, this additional coverage seems good. Committed with your additions.
