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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0in catalog head files?
Дата
Msg-id 4fa162b0-640f-3fdf-7ec3-889159bfb300@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 11/13/16 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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".

I'd think about converting about 75% of what is currently in the catalog
headers into some sort of built-in extension that is loaded via an SQL
script.  There are surely some details about that that would need to be
worked out, but I think that's a more sensible direction than inventing
another custom format.

I wonder how big the essential bootstrap set of pg_proc.h would be and
how manageable the file would be if it were to be reduced like that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Следующее
От: Dave Cramer
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] building HEAD on macos fails with #error no source of random numbers configured