| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Khee Chin <kheechin(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: reloptions with a "namespace" |
| Date: | 2009-04-03 20:48:51 |
| Message-ID: | 22160.1238791731@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
> I think what drove me away from that (which I certainly considered at
> some point) was the existance of OptionDefElem. Maybe it would work to
> make RelOptElem similar to that, i.e. have a char *namespace and a
> DefElem?
OptionDefElem? [ click click grep grep ]
Hmm, I can see that there was more than one round of dubious decisions
made while I was looking the other way :-(. I'm thinking maybe all
three of these should be folded together. Let me think about it a
bit more --- since I'm the one complaining, I guess it should be on
my head to fix it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-03 20:59:58 | Re: reloptions with a "namespace" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-04-03 20:43:40 | Re: reloptions with a "namespace" |