On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 17:48 -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Two functions:
I see that you moved back to a combination function to serve both the
"restore" use case as well as the "ad-hoc stats hacking" use case.
The "restore" use case is the primary point of your patch, and that
should be as simple and future-proof as possible. The parameters should
be name/value pairs and there shouldn't be any "control" parameters --
it's not the job of pg_dump to specify whether the restore should be
transactional or in-place, it should just output the necessary stats.
That restore function might be good enough to satisfy the "ad-hoc stats
hacking" use case as well, but I suspect we want slightly different
behavior. Specifically, I think we'd want the updates to be
transactional rather than in-place, or at least optional.
> The leading OUT parameters tell us the rel/attribute/inh affected (if
> any), and which params had to be rejected for whatever reason. The
> kwargs is the variadic key-value pairs that we were using for all
> stat functions, but now we will be using it for all parameters, both
> statistics and control, the control parameters will be:
I don't like the idea of mixing statistics and control parameters in
the same list.
I do like the idea of returning a set, but I think it should be the
positive set (effectively a representation of what is now in the
pg_stats view) and any ignored settings would be output as WARNINGs.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
