On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 10:28 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 10:51 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 7:23 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 at 7:14 PM, Euler Taveira <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2026, at 4:37 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Yeah we may, but I feel what we have now looks more readable. > > >> > > > >> > > >> My suggestion is that this function should be available in a central > > >> place. > > >> That's not the only place that could use qualified schema and relation. > > >> If you > > >> search for get_namespace_name_or_temp you will notice that this code > > >> path is > > >> repeated in other parts of the code too (see ruleutils.c). It would be > > >> good if > > >> we can have a common path for it. Maybe the signature has to be > > >> get_qualified_relname(Oid) to accommodate > > > > > > > > > IMHO it’s not a good idea to use Oid when you already have reldesc. > > > > +1. > > > > I looked at other use cases of get_namespace_name_or_temp(), and there > > doesn’t seem to be any case where we already have a Relation > > descriptor. So this appears to be a unique scenario, and I feel adding > > a new function here makes sense. If needed, ruleutils.c’s > > generate_qualified_relation_name() could be moved to a common location > > in a separate patch. > > > > I think for HEAD, we can move the common part of > generate_qualified_relation_name() and get_qualified_relname() to a > common function that takes relname as input. We can probably move it > to lsyscache.c. > > Now, we also need to decide whether to backpatch the relevant change > to back-branches. It seems we didn't get the bug-report yet but > clearly what we do currently is not correct. So, we should ideally > backpatch it and in the back branches we don't need to expose it. > OTOH, as it is reported and is not a big issue, so we can keep this as > a HEAD only change as well.
+1, it is a rare error-case scenario and it has not been reported so far despite of change being present for a long time. So I think the HEAD-only change is good. > If we want to keep this as a HEAD only > change then shall we wait for PG20 branch to open or go for current > HEAD itself? What do you and or others think on this matter? > I am fine with both. Again, a rare scenario that hasn't reported yet, we can wait for the Pg20 branch to open. thanks Shveta
