On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 9:49 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:28 PM Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> wrote: >> >> >> The attached v39 patch set uses the followings: >> >> 0001: Create copyto_internal.h and change COPY_XXX to >> COPY_SOURCE_XXX and COPY_DEST_XXX accordingly. >> (Same as 1. in your suggestion) >> 0002: Support custom format for both COPY TO and COPY FROM. >> (Same as 2. in your suggestion) >> 0003: Expose necessary helper functions such as CopySendEndOfRow() >> and add CopyFromSkipErrorRow(). >> (3. + 4. in your suggestion) >> 0004: Define handler functions for built-in formats. >> (Not included in your suggestion) >> 0005: Documentation. (WIP) >> (Same as 5. in your suggestion) >> > > I prefer keeping 0002 and 0004 separate. In particular, keeping the design choice of "unqualified internal format names ignore search_path" should stand out as its own commit.
What is the point of having separate commits for already-agreed design choices? I guess that it would make it easier to revert that decision. But I think it makes more sense that if we agree with "unqualified internal format names ignore search_path" the original commit includes that decision and describes it in the commit message. If we want to change that design based on the discussion later on, we can have a separate commit that makes that change and has the link to the discussion.
Fair. Comment withdrawn. Though I was referring to the WIP patches; I figured the final patch would squash this all together in any case.
