On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > We could consider back-patching the attached to cover this, but > I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble, because I haven't > thought of any non-silly use-cases in the absence of domains > over composite. Comments?
There are no real complaints about the current behavior, aren't there? So only patching HEAD seems enough to me. +comment on constraint c1 on domain dcomptype is 'random commentary'; [...] +alter type comptype alter attribute r type bigint; You have added a comment on the constraint to make sure that it remains up on basically this ALTER TYPE. Querying pg_obj_description would make sure that the comment on the constraint is still here. +static void +RebuildDomainConstraintComment(AlteredTableInfo *tab, int pass, Oid objid, + List *domname, char *conname) There is much duplication with RebuildConstraintComment. Why not grouping both under say RebuildObjectComment()? I would think about having cmd->objtype and cmd->object passed as arguments, and then remove rel and domname from the existing arguments. [nit] foreach(lcmd, subcmds) - ATExecCmd(wqueue, tab, rel, (AlterTableCmd *) lfirst(lcmd), lockmode); + ATExecCmd(wqueue, tab, rel, + castNode(AlterTableCmd, lfirst(lcmd)), + lockmode); This does not really belong to this patch.. No objections to group things. [/nit] -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers