On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> The problem isn't confined to CREATE TABLE LIKE; it's a widespread
>> design flaw that will likely take years of work to clean up
>> completely. I don't think that's a reason not to commit your change
>> though; it fixes a
Robert Haas writes:
> The problem isn't confined to CREATE TABLE LIKE; it's a widespread
> design flaw that will likely take years of work to clean up
> completely. I don't think that's a reason not to commit your change
> though; it fixes a bug and is an incremental improvement, even if a
> smal
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I suggested that we could dodge the problem by allowing IndexStmt to
>>> carry a comment to be attached to the new index, and thereby avoid
>>> needing an explicit COMM
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I suggested that we could dodge the problem by allowing IndexStmt to
>> carry a comment to be attached to the new index, and thereby avoid
>> needing an explicit COMMENT command. Attached is a patch that fixes it
>> that w
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In bug #6734 we have a complaint about a longstanding misfeature of
> CREATE TABLE LIKE. Ordinarily, this command doesn't select names for
> copied indexes, but leaves that to be done at runtime by DefineIndex.
> But if it's copying comments, and
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I would like to sneak this fix into 9.2, though. Does anyone think
> >> it's already too late to be touching these APIs for 9.2?
>
> > I'd like us to stick to the
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would like to sneak this fix into 9.2, though. Does anyone think
>> it's already too late to be touching these APIs for 9.2?
> I'd like us to stick to the standard practice of not changing features/API
> in beta relea
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> While I was at it, it seemed like DefineIndex's parameter list had grown
> well past any sane bound, so I refactored it to pass the IndexStmt
> struct as-is rather than passing all the fields individually.
>
> With or without that choice, thoug
