Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?
Дата
Msg-id 20924.1479057590@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0in catalog head files?
Список pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-11-13 11:23:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can't use CREATE FUNCTION as the representation in the .bki file,
>> because of the circularities involved (you can't fill pg_proc before
>> pg_type nor vice versa).  But I think Peter was suggesting that the
>> input to the bki-generator script could look like CREATE commands.
>> That's true, but I fear it would greatly increase the complexity
>> of the script for not much benefit.

> It'd also be very pg_proc specific, which isn't where I think this
> should go..

The presumption is that we have a CREATE command for every type of
object that we need to put into the system catalogs.  But yes, the
other problem with this approach is that you need to do a lot more
work per-catalog to build the converter script.  I'm not sure how
much of that could be imported from gram.y, but I'm afraid the
answer would be "not enough".
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Tackling JsonPath support
Следующее
От: Dmitry Dolgov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscription