| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType |
| Date: | 2017-12-19 19:58:49 |
| Message-ID: | 2fc44219-2841-dc40-2f6a-3b3d9ea14992@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/15/17 14:10, Robert Haas wrote:
>> There is an argument for having a big array versus the switch/case
>> approach. But most existing code around object addresses uses the
>> switch/case approach, so it's better to align it that way, I think.
>> It's weird to have to maintain two different styles.
> Eh, really? What about the two big arrays at the top of objectaddress.c?
They are not indexed by object type. I can't find any existing array or
other structure that fits into what this patch is doing (other than the
one this patch is removing).
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-19 20:01:03 | Re: vacuum vs heap_update_tuple() and multixactids |
| Previous Message | Haisheng Yuan | 2017-12-19 19:55:32 | Bitmap table scan cost per page formula |