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