On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:28 PM Maxim Orlov <orlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > I'm pretty much like the idea of the patch. Looks like an overlook in SQL > standard for me. > Anyway, patch apply with no conflicts and implements described > functionality. > > Thank you for looking at this. > On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:06, Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> wrote: > >> >> I don't like this part of the patch at all. Not only is the >> documentation only half baked, but the entire concept of the two >> commands is different. Especially since I believe the command should >> also create a generated column from a non-generated one. > > > But I have to agree with Vik Fearing, we can make this patch better, > should we? > I totally understand your intentions to keep the code flow simple and reuse > existing code as much > as possible. But in terms of semantics of these commands, they are quite > different from each other. > And in terms of reading of the code, this makes it even harder to > understand what is going on here. > So, in my view, consider split these commands. > Ok, probably, I would work in that direction. I did the same thing that SET/DROP DEFAULT does, despite semantic differences, and also, if I am not missing anything, the code complexity should be the same as that. Regards, Amul
