On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:56 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:10 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 5)
> > + if (list_length(pubobj->name) == 1 &&
> > + (strcmp(relname, "CURRENT_SCHEMA") == 0))
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > + errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > + errmsg("invalid relation name at or near"),
> > + parser_errposition(pstate, pubobj->location));
> >
> > Maybe we don't need this check, because it will report an error in
> > OpenTableList() anyway, "relation "CURRENT_SCHEMA" does not exist" , and that
> > message seems readable to me.
>
> Allowing CURRENT_SCHEMA is required to support current schema for
> schema publications, currently I'm allowing this syntax during parsing
> and this error is thrown for relations later, this is done to keep the
> similar error as earlier before this feature support. I felt we can
> keep it like this to maintain the similar error. Thoughts?
>
I find this check quite ad-hoc in the code and I am not sure if we
need to be consistent for the exact message in this case. So, I think
it is better to remove it.
>
> > About 0003
> > 7)
> > The v22-0003 seems simple and can remove lots of code in patch v22-0001, so
> > maybe we can merge 0001 and 0003 into one patch ?
>
> I agree that the code becomes simpler, it reduces a lot of code. I had
> kept it like that as the testing effort might be more and also I was
> waiting if there was no objection for that syntax from anyone else. I
> will wait for a few more reviews and merge it to 0001 if there are no
> objections.
>
+1 to merge the patch as suggested by Hou-San.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.