On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:38:56AM -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Paquier's response got sidetracked because of an errant subject line
> change, so I will try to recap:
That was a typo that found its way into the email subject. Sorry
about that, that broke gmail's tracking at least.
> in that off-list discussion I proposed (though I was mostly echoing what I
> thought Paquier wanted):
>
> 1. pg_ndistinct output function change.
> 2. pg_ndistinct input function addition.
> 3. pg_dependencies output function change
> 4. pg_dependencies input function
> 5. Expose attribute statistics function and rename them attstat_* or
> statatt_* (edit: and fix lack of comments on the enums and arrays)
> 6. pg_restore_extended_stats
> 7. pg_dump with no ability to fetch old-format pg_ndistinct/pg_dependences.
> (edit: and fix inherited bug)
> 8. pg_dump working back as far as possible
Thanks. I have begun reviewing it (more a bit later, still need to
study more the structure of the code). For now, I have extracted some
of the comment changes in 0005 and applied these independently.
> Given that the pg_dump code no longer seems as bad, and Tomas is very much
> in support of it, I've opted not to split out steps 7/8.
That sounds like a way forward to me, then, in terms of using a new
format and make pg_dump intelligent enough to deal with it based on
what's in the past versions.
--
Michael
