On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:52 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 9:49 AM David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:28 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> The attached v39 patch set uses the followings: > >> > >> 0001: Create copyto_internal.h and change COPY_XXX to > >> COPY_SOURCE_XXX and COPY_DEST_XXX accordingly. > >> (Same as 1. in your suggestion) > >> 0002: Support custom format for both COPY TO and COPY FROM. > >> (Same as 2. in your suggestion) > >> 0003: Expose necessary helper functions such as CopySendEndOfRow() > >> and add CopyFromSkipErrorRow(). > >> (3. + 4. in your suggestion) > >> 0004: Define handler functions for built-in formats. > >> (Not included in your suggestion) > >> 0005: Documentation. (WIP) > >> (Same as 5. in your suggestion) > >> > > > > I prefer keeping 0002 and 0004 separate. In particular, keeping the > design choice of "unqualified internal format names ignore search_path" > should stand out as its own commit. > > What is the point of having separate commits for already-agreed design > choices? I guess that it would make it easier to revert that decision. > But I think it makes more sense that if we agree with "unqualified > internal format names ignore search_path" the original commit includes > that decision and describes it in the commit message. If we want to > change that design based on the discussion later on, we can have a > separate commit that makes that change and has the link to the > discussion. > Fair. Comment withdrawn. Though I was referring to the WIP patches; I figured the final patch would squash this all together in any case. David J.
