Re: Add support for restrictive RLS policies

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> Can't you keep those words as Sconst or something (DefElems?) until the
>> execution phase, so that they don't need to be keywords at all?

> Seems like we could do that, though I'm not convinced that it really
> gains us all that much. These are only unreserved keywords, of course,
> so they don't impact users the way reserved keywords (of any kind) can.
> While there may be some places where we use a string to represent a set
> of defined options, I don't believe that's typical

-1 for having to write them as string literals; but I think what Alvaro
really means is to arrange for the words to just be identifiers in the
grammar, which you strcmp against at execution. See for example
reloption_list. (Whether you use DefElem as the internal representation
is a minor detail, though it might help for making the parsetree
copyObject-friendly.)

vacuum_option_elem shows another way to avoid making a word into a
keyword, although to me that one is more of an antipattern; it'd be better
to leave the strcmp to execution, since there's so much other code that
does things that way.

regards, tom lane