On 2017/01/05 8:05, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
You beat me to revising the patch along the lines suggested by Ashutosh. >> 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. Thanks for reviewing and committing the patch! Regards, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
