Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Huh? Those files are the definition of that mapping, no? Isn't what
>> you're proposing circular?
> No, there are far more references to Oids than there are definitions of them.
Well, you're still not being very clear, but I *think* what you're
proposing is to put a lot more smarts into the script that converts
the master source files into .bki format. That is, we might have
"=(int8,int4)" in an entry in the master source file for pg_amop, but
the script would look up that entry using the source data for pg_type
and pg_operator, and then emit a simple numeric OID into the .bki file.
(Presumably, it would know to do this because we'd redefine the
pg_amop.amopopr column as of regoperator type not plain OID.)
Yeah, that could work, though I'd be a bit concerned about the complexity
and speed of the script. Still, one doesn't usually rebuild postgres.bki
many times a day, so speed might not be a big problem.
This seems more or less orthogonal to the question of whether to get rid
of the DATA() lines in favor of a COPY-friendly data format. I'd suggest
treating those as separate patches.
regards, tom lane