Re: mapping object names to role IDs

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm with Stephen on this one.  I agree that standardizing the function
>>> names and behavior would be a good idea, but don't try to put them all
>>> in one place.
>
>> Some of the existing functions are in lsyscache.c, some are in files
>> in the commands directory, and some are in files in the parser
>> directory; also, even between commands and parser, not every object
>> type has its own file.  It would be nice to bring some consistency to
>> where the functions are located as well as what they do.  Any thoughts
>> on how to achieve that?
>
> I think both Stephen and I are saying we don't see merit in that.
> Moving around pre-existing functions won't accomplish much except
> causing include-list churn.  Let's just standardize the names/APIs
> and be done.

Where do we put the new functions?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company