Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options
От
Michael Paquier
Тема
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options
Дата
Msg-id
20191113073029.GW1549@paquier.xyz
Ответ на
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to storepartitioned table options Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
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. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления