On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 9:16 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:28 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 01:56:50PM +0530, vignesh C wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Added missing copy related data structures to typedefs.list, these > > > > data structures were added while copy files were split during the > > > > recent commit. I found this while running pgindent for parallel copy > > > > patches. > > > > The Attached patch has the changes for the same. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Uh, we usually only update the typedefs file before we run pgindent on > > > the master branch. > > > > > > > Ok, Thanks for the clarification. I was not sure as in few of the > > enhancements it was included as part of the patches. > > > > Yeah, I do that while committing patches that require changes in > typedefs. It is not a norm and I am not sure how much value it adds to > do it separately for the missing ones unless you are making changes in > the same file they are used and you are facing unrelated diffs due to > those missing ones.
I found this while I was running pgindent for parallel copy patches. I was not sure if this change was left out intentionally or by mistake. I'm fine if it is committed separately or together at a later point. It is not a major problem for my patch since I know the change, I will do the required adjustment when I make changes on top of it, if it is not getting committed. But I felt we can commit this since it is a recent change. Regards, Vignesh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
