On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 06:49:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 03:15:14PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 04:04:23PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: >>> expr_attnum was something that Michael Paquier had lamented that the view >>> didn't have. There is obviously no present need for it, as pg_dump isn't >>> being modified for extended stats at all. >> >> Okay. I think I'll continue to leave this one out for now. > > Lamenting is the right term. The expressions stored in an extended > stats object have attnumbers computed by the backend, starting from -1 > and decremented, and we don't expose this information at all in any > system view. It could have helped in enforcing a stronger ordering of > the items dumps for the extstats restore functions. I still think > that it could provide an extra layer of safety. Now, we don't > critically require it either based on how we pass down the input > arrays, how we dump the data from the catalogs, and how we treat the > order of the items given as function args.
FTR I'm not mortally opposed to the idea. I just want to get the easier stuff out of the way first so we can commit the pg_dump change. Then we can give expr_attnum our undivided attention. -- nathan
