Re: reloptions with a "namespace"

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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"