Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Right. But I think it's better to use attribute id, in case the code
> raising this error changes for any reason in future.
I agree. The parent's "tdhasoid" flag is definitely based on the
existence of an ObjectIdAttributeNumber system column, not on whether the
column's name is "oid". So doing a lookup by name to find the matching
child column is just weird, and cannot possibly lead to anything good.
> The code updating attinhcount and then updating the catalogs is same
> for user defined attributes and OID. Should we separate it out into a
> function and use that function instead of duplicating the code?
Didn't really seem worth the trouble ... maybe if it gets any longer
it'd be appropriate to do that.
> Your test uses tablenames starting with "_". I have not seen that
> style in the testcases. Is it intentional?
Yeah, I did not like that either.
Pushed with those corrections and some further fooling with the test case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
