| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring comment.c |
| Date: | 2010-08-17 18:14:45 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=UMZN=otomSKpEQGwCHwMYdDKEh=5NsMtOQr2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Maybe so, but the parser is expected to put out a representation that
>> will still be valid when the command is executed some time later.
>
> Rereading this, I see I didn't make my point very clearly. The reason
> this code doesn't belong in parser/ is that there's no prospect the
> parser itself would ever use it. ObjectAddress is an execution-time
> creature because we don't want utility statement representations to be
> resolved to OID-level detail before they execute.
Well, that is a good reason for doing it your way, but I'm slightly
fuzzy on why we need a crisp separation between parse-time and
execution-time.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-08-17 18:15:59 | Re: Todays git migration results |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-08-17 18:08:51 | Re: Progress indication prototype |