Re: reloptions with a "namespace"

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> 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.

Well, you could still have separate productions that did or didn't allow
qualified names there (or perhaps better, have the code in
functioncmds.c reject qualified names). I think the use of two different
node types is going to result in duplicate coding and/or bugs deeper in
the system, however.

regards, tom lane