On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:15 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 12:32 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:46 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Attached v33 patch has the preprocess_pubobj_list review comment fix
> > suggested by Alvaro at [1]. The
> > v33-0006-Alternate-grammar-for-ALL-TABLES-IN-SCHEMA.patch patch has
> > the grammar changes as suggested by Alvaro at [1]. If we agree this is better, I
> > will merge this into the 0001 patch.
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109241325.eag5g6mpvoup%40alvherre.pgsql
>
> Hi,
>
> The grammar change basically looks good to me. Only one suggestion is that it
> will be better to add some more comments in gram.y to describe the rule
> PublicationObjSpec. Because it's a new style syntax in postgresql, people might
> wonder how the code work and why we choose this design when they first time
> see this rule in gram.y.
>
> Maybe something like the following:
>
> +/*
> + * FOR TABLE and FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA specifications
> + *
> + * This rule parses publication object with and without keyword prefix.
> + *
> + * The actual type of the object without keyword prefix depends on the previous
> + * one with keyword prefix. It will be preprocessed in preprocess_pubobj_list().
> + *
> + * For the object without keyword prefix, we cannot just use relation_expr here,
> + * because some extended expression in relation_expr cannot be used as a
> + * schemaname and we cannot differentiate it. So, we extract the rules from
> + * relation_expr here.
> + */
> PublicationObjSpec:
> TABLE relation_expr
> ...
>
> My words might not be good, but I think it will be better to add some comments
> to explain a bit about the code in gram.y. Thoughts ?
Modified.
Attached v34 patch has the changes for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh