Hi Fujii-san, Tatsuya-san,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:39 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 3:07 PM Tatsuya Kawata
> <kawatatatsuya0913@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Fujii-san,
> >
> > Thank you for your review!
> >
> > > Would it be better to use "relations supporting SELECT" instead of "selectables"?
> >
> > Good point. I've updated the comment to use "relations supporting SELECT" for consistency.
> >
> > > As for the regression test, I agree with Kirill.
> >
> > In my earlier discussion with Kirill, I argued that tests should be kept since this patch implements a new feature.
> > However, I now understand that the existing tests already cover the Query_for_list_of_selectables pattern,
> > so a separate test for DELETE ... USING would be redundant. I've removed the test in the updated patch.
> >
> > I've prepared a v5 patch with the following changes:
> > - Use "relations supporting SELECT" in the comment for consistency
> > - Remove the regression test
> >
> > The updated v5 patch is attached.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch! I've pushed it.
Thank you for the updates and for committing the patch.
I have reviewed the final changes in v5. Switching to
Query_for_list_of_selectables and aligning the behavior with SELECT
... FROM makes the implementation cleaner for me too and seems more
consistent with existing completion patterns. And also the removal of
the redundant test also makes sense given the existing coverage.
I appreciate the careful refinements and the clarity brought
throughout the review discussion.
Best regards,
Soumya
