Re: machine-parseable object descriptions

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > One change I made was to move all the new code from dependency.c into
> > objectaddress.c. The only reason it was in dependency.c was that
> > getObjectDescription was there in the first place; but it doesn't seem
> > to me that it really belongs there. (Back when it was first created,
> > there was no objectaddress.c at all, and dependency.c was the only user
> > of it.) If there were no backpatching considerations, I would suggest
> > we move getObjectDescription() to objectaddress.c as well, but I'm not
> > sure it's worth the trouble, but I'm not wedded to that if somebody
> > thinks both things should be kept together.
>
> +1 for moving getObjectDescription to objectaddress.c. As you say,
> that's probably where it would've been if that file had existed at
> the time. I don't recall that we've had to back-patch many changes
> in that function, so I don't think that concern is major.

Okay, I have pushed it with that change. Thanks for the quick feedback.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services