Re: logical changeset generation v4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v4
Date: 2013-01-18 17:37:04
Message-ID: 10047.1358530624@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I took a quick look at this and am just curious why we're adding the
> requirement that t_tableOid has to be initialized?

I assume he meant it had been left at a random value, which is surely
bad practice even if a specific usage doesn't fall over today.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-01-18 17:44:13 Re: Event Triggers: adding information
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-01-18 17:32:53 Re: logical changeset generation v4