On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 14:34 AM Ajin Cherian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Changes are in patch 1 and patch 2
Thanks for updating the patch set.
Here are some comments:
For v-75-0002* patch.
1. In the function deparse_AlterRelation.
+ if ((sub->address.objectId != relId &&
+ sub->address.objectId != InvalidOid) &&
+ !(subcmd->subtype == AT_AddConstraint &&
+ subcmd->recurse) &&
+ istable)
+ continue;
I think when we execute the command "ALTER TABLE ... ADD (index)" (subtype is
AT_AddIndexConstraint or AT_AddIndex), this command will be skipped for parsing.
I think we need to parse both types of commands here.
===
For v-75-0003* patch.
2. In the function deparse_CreateSeqStmt.
It seems that we are not deparsing the "AS data_type" clause (CREATE SEQUENCE
... AS data_type). I think this causes all data_type to be default (bigint)
after executing the parsed CreateSeq command.
~~~
3. In the function deparse_CreateTrigStmt
+ tgargs = DatumGetByteaP(fastgetattr(trigTup,
+
Anum_pg_trigger_tgargs,
+
RelationGetDescr(pg_trigger),
+
&isnull));
+ if (isnull)
+ elog(ERROR, "null tgargs for trigger \"%s\"",
+ NameStr(trigForm->tgname));
+ argstr = (char *) VARDATA(tgargs);
+ lentgargs = VARSIZE_ANY_EXHDR(tgargs);
a.
I think it might be better to invoke the function DatumGetByteaP after checking
the flag "isnull". Because if "isnull" is true, I think an unexpected pointer
((NULL)->va_header) will be used when invoking macro VARATT_IS_4B_U.
b.
Since commit 3a0d473 recommends using macro DatumGetByteaPP instead of
DatumGetByteaP, and the function pg_get_triggerdef_worker also uses macro
DatumGetByteaPP, I think it might be better to use DatumGetByteaPP here.
~~~
4. In the function deparse_CreateTrigStmt
+ append_object_object(ret, "EXECUTE PROCEDURE %{function}s", tmp_obj);
Since the use of the keyword "PROCEDURE" is historical, I think it might be
better to use "FUNCTION".
===
For v-75-0004* patch.
5. File src/test/modules/test_ddl_deparse_regress/README.md
+1. Test that the generated JSON blob is expected using SQL tests.
+2. Test that the re-formed DDL command is expected using SQL tests.
+3. Test that the re-formed DDL command has the same effect as the
original command
+ by comparing the results of pg_dump, using the SQL tests in 1 and 2.
+4. Test that new DDL syntax is handled by the DDL deparser by capturing
and deparing
+ DDL commands ran by pg_regress.
Inconsistent spacing:
\t -> blank space
Regards,
Wang wei
