On 5/18/17, 8:03 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>”Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
>> On 5/18/17, 6:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Fine for me as well. I would suggest to split the patch into two parts
>>> to ease review then:
>>> - Rework this error handling for one relation.
>>> - The main patch.
>>
>> I’d be happy to do so, but I think part one would be pretty small, and almost all of the same code needs to be
changedin the main patch anyway. I do not foresee a huge impact on review-ability either way. If others disagree, I
cansplit it up.
>
>Yeah, I'm dubious that that's really necessary. If the change proves
>bigger than you're anticipating, maybe it's worth a two-step approach,
>but I share your feeling that it probably isn’t.
Just in case it was missed among the discussion, I’d like to point out that v5 of the patch includes the “ERROR if
ANALYZEnot specified” change.
Nathan