Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:07:36 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruno Bonfils <asyd@asyd.net>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	sshang@pivotal.io, Alexey Bashtanov <alexey@brandwatch.com>
Subject: Re: About #13489, array dimensions and CREATE TABLE ... LIKE
Message-ID: <ZVwQ6Fyh2SghkXja@momjian.us>
References: <ZD+14YZ4IUue8Rhi@gendo.asyd.net>
 <ZPuN20z3HcBXdKow@momjian.us>
 <ZVwI_ozT8z9MCnIZ@momjian.us>
 <1402391.1700532261@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1402391.1700532261@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZVwQ6Fyh2SghkXja%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:04:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I would like to apply this patch to master because I think our current
> > deficiencies in this area are unacceptable.
> 
> I do not think this is a particularly good idea, because it creates
> the impression in a couple of places that we track this data, when
> we do not really do so to any meaningful extent.

Okay, I thought we could get by without tracking the CREATE TABLE AS
case, but it is inconsistent.  My patch just makes it less
inconsistent.

> > 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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.