On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:22 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> > > the point of giving it a NodeTag?
> >
> > Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep the code clean.
>
> It looks to me like if we made it a plain struct rather than a node,
> and embedded that struct (not a pointer) in VacuumStmt, then what
> would happen is that _copyVacuumStmt and _equalVacuumStmt would have
> clauses for each vacuum option individually, with a dot, like
> COPY_SCALAR_FIELD(options.flags).
>
> Also, the grammar production for VacuumStmt would need to be jiggered
> around a bit; the way that options consolidation is done there would
> have to be changed.
>
> Neither of those things sound terribly hard or terribly messy, but on
> the other hand I guess there's nothing really wrong with the way you
> did it, either ... anybody else have an opinion?
>
I don't have a strong opinion but the using a Node would be more
suitable in the future when we add more options to vacuum. And it
seems to me that it's unlikely to change a Node to a plain struct. So
there is an idea of doing it now anyway if we might need to do it
someday.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center