>
>
>
>
> From testrun/pg_dump/002_pg_dump/log/regress_log_002_pg_dump, search
> for the "not ok" and then look at what it tried to do right before
> that. I see:
>
> pg_dump: error: prepared statement failed: ERROR: syntax error at or
> near "%"
> LINE 1: ..._histogram => %L::real[]) coalesce($2, format('%I.%I',
> a.nsp...
>
Thanks. Unfamiliar turf for me.
>
> > All those changes are available in the patches attached.
>
> How about if you provided "get" versions of the functions that return a
> set of rows that match what the "set" versions expect? That would make
> 0001 essentially a complete feature itself.
>
That's tricky. At the base level, those functions would just be an
encapsulation of "SELECT * FROM pg_stats WHERE schemaname = $1 AND
tablename = $2" which isn't all that much of a savings. Perhaps we can make
the documentation more explicit about the source and nature of the
parameters going into the pg_set_ functions.
Per conversation, it would be trivial to add a helper functions that
replace the parameters after the initial oid with a pg_class rowtype, and
that would dissect the values needed and call the more complex function:
pg_set_relation_stats( oid, pg_class)
pg_set_attribute_stats( oid, pg_stats)
>
> I think it would also make the changes in pg_dump simpler, and the
> tests in 0001 a lot simpler.
>
I agree. The tests are currently showing that a fidelity copy can be made
from one table to another, but to do so we have to conceal the actual stats
values because those are 1. not deterministic/known and 2. subject to
change from version to version.
I can add some sets to arbitrary values like was done for
pg_set_relation_stats().
