Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> Okay, so are we okay to back-patch something like v1? Or should we also
> return NULL for other sessions' temporary schemas on primaries? That would
> change the condition to something like
> char relpersist = seqrel->rd_rel->relpersistence;
> if (relpersist == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT ||
> (relpersist == RELPERSISTENCE_UNLOGGED &&
> !RecoveryInProgress()) ||
> !RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(seqrel))
> {
> ...
> }
Should be AND'ing not OR'ing the !TEMP condition, no? Also I liked
your other formulation of the persistence check better.
> I personally think that would be fine to back-patch since pg_sequences
> already filters it out anyway.
+1 to include that, as it offers a defense if someone invokes this
function directly. In HEAD we could then rip out the test in the
view.
BTW, I think you also need something like
- int64 result;
+ int64 result = 0;
Your compiler may not complain about result being possibly
uninitialized, but IME others will.
regards, tom lane
