On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:49:25PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/12/20 9:31), Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Attached is the patch with two new test cases blowing with wal_level =
>> minimal. On HEAD, I suggest that we use RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE to not
>> fall again in this trap in the future. For back-branches, let's just
>> add the appropriate relkind checks as suggested upthread.
>
> To make maintenance easy, I think it might be better to add the appropriate
> relkind checks on HEAD as well. Other than that, the patch looks good to
> me.
Well, using RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE is exactly to ease future
maintenance so as we don't fall again into the same trap if a new
relkind which has no physical storage gets introduced if it supports
COPY FROM. So I would keep really it on HEAD.
> Thanks for the updated patch!
And thanks for taking the time to review the patch.
--
Michael