| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |
| Date: | 2016-08-09 15:56:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20160809155623.GA567087@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > Where'd be a good place to put that function? ruleutils? catalog/index.c ?
>
> > (ruleutils is way too big already)
>
> Agreed. catalog/index.c is not a place that implements SQL-visible
> functions, so I don't like that either.
>
> One idea is utils/adt/misc.c. Or we could make a new file under
> utils/adt/ though I'm not very sure what to name it. amaccess.c?
> catutils.c? If there's only ever likely to be one or two functions
> of this ilk, maybe a new file is overkill and we should just use misc.c.
I like the idea of a new file; I have a hunch that it will grow, given
that we're expanding in this area, and perhaps we can find some existing
stuff to relocate there in the future. I don't think a small file is a
problem, anyway.
How about amfuncs.c? Maybe it can live in catalog/ instead of
utils/adt?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-08-09 16:01:38 | Set log_line_prefix and application name in test drivers |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-08-09 15:42:16 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |