On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:48:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do, rather than repeat the same finicky &
> undocumented coding pattern in one more place, is write a convenience
> function for it that can be named and documented to reflect the coding
> rule about which call sites should use it (rather than calling plain
> generate_relation_name). However, the first requirement for that
> is to have a clearly defined rule. I think the intent of 815172ba8068
> was to convert all uses that would determine the object-creation schema
> in commands issued by pg_dump. Do we want to widen that, and if so
> by how much? I'd be on board I think with adjusting other ruleutils.c
> functions that could plausibly be used for building creation commands,
> but happen not to be called by pg_dump. I'm not on board with
> converting every single generate_relation_name call --- mainly because
> it'd be pointless unless you also qualify every single function name,
> operator name, etc; and that would be unreadable.
Lukas, please note that this patch is waiting for your input for a few
weeks now. Could you reply to the reviews provided?
--
Michael
