On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:24:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, thanks for compiling all these. The two changes committed were
> the only user-visible changes, which is why I have hastened this part
> to include those fixes. The rest could just go on HEAD.
I have looked at the full set, and applied 0003, 0006, 0009, 0010 and
0011. 0001 has been discussed separately, and I am really not sure if
that's worth bothering. 0002 may actually break some code? I have
let 0004 and 0005 alone. 0007 could be related to the discussion
where we could just remove all those IDENTIFICATION fields. The use
of "statistic", "statistics" and "statistics object" in 0008 and 0012
is indeed inconsistent. The latter term is the most used, but it
sounds a bit weird to me even if it refers to the DDL object
manipulated. Simply using "statistics" would be tempting.
--
Michael