On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:21 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> From Friday, September 10, 2021 1:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 8:54 AM Hou zhijie <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From Friday, September 10, 2021 10:33 AM Hou
> > Zhijie<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Besides, If we don't want to use a new flag to distinguish tablename and
> > schemaname,
> > > We can only check the NodeTag to distinguish the difference.
> > >
> > > Attach two diff patches based on the latest schema patch
> > > which change the code with a flag and without a flag.
> > >
> >
> > I would prefer a version without additional flags unless you think it
> > is difficult to extend it in the future for other objects like
> > sequences which as far as I can see shouldn't be the case.
>
> Ok, I agreed.
>
> > Is there a
> > reason to define pubobj_name similar to any_name? If so, then please
> > do add the comments. One reason I could think of is that any_name is
> > not used for schema names currently which might have motivated you to
> > define a separate naming convention for publication.
>
> When I used any_name, Bison reported that the dot('.') in rule attr
> would have a shift/reduce conflict with the dot('.') in rule indirection_el
> which also used in pubobj_expr. So, I declared a new rule which will directly
> use indirection_el to resolve the conflicts.
>
> Attach the without-flag version and add comments about the pubobj_name.
Thanks for the changes, the suggested changes make the parsing code
simpler. I have merged the changes to the main patch. Attached v27
patch has the changes for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
