On Wed, May 31, 2023 5:41 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:45 AM Yu Shi (Fujitsu) <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 0008 patch
> > -----
> > 4.
> > case AT_AddColumn:
> > /* XXX need to set the "recurse" bit somewhere? */
> > Assert(IsA(subcmd->def, ColumnDef));
> > - tree = deparse_ColumnDef(rel, dpcontext, false,
> > - (ColumnDef *) subcmd->def, true,
> &expr);
> >
> > mark_function_volatile(context, expr);
> >
> > After this change, `expr` is not assigned a value when mark_function_volatile is
> called.
> >
>
> Corrected.
>
It looks the call to mark_function_volatile() is removed in this case. I think
we still need it, otherwise we won't know if the command contains a volatile
function. (see check_command_publishable().)
> > 5.
> > create table p1(f1 int);
> > create table p1_c1() inherits(p1);
> > alter table p1 add constraint inh_check_constraint1 check (f1 > 0);
> > alter table p1_c1 add constraint inh_check_constraint1 check (f1 > 0);
> >
> > The re-formed command of the last command is "ALTER TABLE public.p1_c1",
> which
> > seems to be wrong.
> >
>
> Fixed, second alter-table should actually be no-op in terms of
> deparsing. But when it is run without running the first alter-table
> command, it should generate the reformed command.
>
If the second alter-table is no-op in terms of deparsing, the dumped result of
origin command and that of re-formed command will be different. This seems to be
because `conislocal` column of pg_constraint has different values. (After the
second alter-table, its value is changed from false to true.)
Regards,
Shi Yu