Re: reloptions with a "namespace"

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Khee Chin <kheechin(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reloptions with a "namespace"
Date: 2009-04-03 20:06:47
Message-ID: 20090403200647.GN23023@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > This patch seems to be the right cure. (Some other users of
> > opt_definition remain; I think it's just CREATE FUNCTION by now).
>
> Surely this will break other things. I find myself wondering why you
> invented ReloptElem at all, instead of adding a field to DefElem.

I had to, precisely because it messes up other uses of DefElem ...

For example, the grammar would allow
CREATE FUNCTION ... WITH something.name = value
which we certainly don't want.

I don't expect to break anything else actually. Keep in mind that those
"opt_definition" were there precisely to carry reloptions for the
affected indexes.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-03 20:11:52 Re: reloptions with a "namespace"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-03 20:01:32 Re: reloptions with a "namespace"