Re: reloptions with a "namespace"

Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> Tom Lane escribió:

> > Well, you could still have separate productions that did or didn't allow
> > qualified names there (or perhaps better, have the code in
> > functioncmds.c reject qualified names).  I think the use of two different
> > node types is going to result in duplicate coding and/or bugs deeper in
> > the system, however.
> 
> I think what drove me away from that (which I certainly considered at
> some point) was the existance of OptionDefElem.  Maybe it would work to
> make RelOptElem similar to that, i.e. have a char *namespace and a
> DefElem?

... but I don't really see that this buys much of anything.  I think a
better answer to this kind of problem would be

*** src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c  24 Mar 2009 20:17:09 -0000  1.24
--- src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c  3 Apr 2009 19:43:35 -0000
*************** transformRelOptions(Datum oldOptions, Li
*** 574,579 ****
--- 574,580 ----   {       ReloptElem    *def = lfirst(cell); 
+       Assert(IsA(def, ReloptElem));        if (isReset)       {


-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.