Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5GJE-00CeXo-0M for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 02:16:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5GJC-00CLWc-If for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 02:16:14 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5GGB-00CIrO-4V for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 02:13:07 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5GG8-006ZPB-Hh for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 02:13:05 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 3AL2D1BW1403261; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:13:01 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Bruno Bonfils , PostgreSQL-development , Alexey Bashtanov Subject: Re: About #13489, array dimensions and CREATE TABLE ... LIKE In-reply-to: References: <1402391.1700532261@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:07:36 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1403259.1700532781.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:13:01 -0500 Message-ID: <1403260.1700532781@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:04:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian writes: >>> An alternate approach would >>> be to remove pg_attribute.attndims so we don't even try to preserve >>> dimensionality. >> I could get behind that, perhaps. It looks like we're not using the >> field in any meaningful way, and we could simplify TupleDescInitEntry >> and perhaps some other APIs. > So should I work on that patch or do you want to try? I think we should > do something. Let's wait for some other opinions, first ... regards, tom lane