В письме от среда, 13 ноября 2019 г. 16:30:29 MSK пользователь Michael Paquier
написал:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:50:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > We have been through great length to have build_reloptions, so
> > wouldn't it be better to also have this code path do so? Sure you
> > need to pass NULL for the parsing table.. But there is a point to
> > reduce the code paths using directly parseRelOptions() and the
> > follow-up, expected calls to allocate and to fill in the set of
> > reloptions.
>
> So I have been looking at this one, and finished with the attached.
> It looks much better to use build_reloptions() IMO, taking advantage
> of the same sanity checks present for the other relkinds.
Thanks!
I did not read that thread yet, when I sent v3 patch.
build_reloptions is a good stuff and we should use it for sure.
I've looked at yours v4 version of the patch, it is exactly what we need here.
Can we commit it as it is?
--
Software Developer: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~014a87e140ff02c0da
Body-oriented Therapist: https://vk.com/nataraj_rebalancing (Russian)