"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
> On 5/18/17, 6:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fine for me as well. I would suggest to split the patch into two parts
>> to ease review then:
>> - Rework this error handling for one relation.
>> - The main patch.
> I’d be happy to do so, but I think part one would be pretty small, and almost all of the same code needs to be
changedin the main patch anyway. I do not foresee a huge impact on review-ability either way. If others disagree, I
cansplit it up.
Yeah, I'm dubious that that's really necessary. If the change proves
bigger than you're anticipating, maybe it's worth a two-step approach,
but I share your feeling that it probably isn't.
regards, tom lane