On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes: > Just to confirm, we ARE able to assume dense packing of attributes in an > index, and thus we can infer the attnum from the position of the attname in > the aggregated array, and there's no need to do a parallel array_agg of > attnums, yes?
Yes, absolutely, there are no dropped columns in indexes. See upthread discussion.
We could have avoided two sub-selects for attstattarget too, on the same principle: just collect them all and sort it out later. That'd risk bloating pg_dump's storage, although maybe we could have handled that by doing additional processing while inspecting the results of getIndexes' query, so as not to store anything in the common case.
regards, tom lane
0001 - Add attnum support to attribute_statistics_update
* Basically what Tom posted earlier, minus the pg_set_attribute_stats stuff, obviously.
0002 - Add attnum support to pg_dump.
* Removed att_stats_arginfo * Folds appendRelStatsImport and appendAttStatsImport into dumpRelationStats