2011/8/2 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
>>> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> >
>>> >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
>>> >> > lookup functions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied
>>> >> object type should be provided.
>>> >>
>>> >> int get_object_property_catid_oidlookup(ObjectType);
>>> >> int get_object_property_catid_namelookup(ObjectType);
>>> >> Oid get_object_property_relation_id(ObjectType);
>>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_nameattnum(ObjectType);
>>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_namespacenum(ObjectType);
>>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_ownershipnum(ObjectType);
>>> >
>>> > Maybe a single lookup function that receives pointers that the lookup
>>> > routine can fill with the appropriate information; allowing for a NULL
>>> > pointer in each, meaning caller is not interested in that property.
>>>
>>> That seems like a lot of extra notational complexity for no particular
>>> benefit. Every time someone wants to add a new property to this
>>> array, they're going to have to touch every caller, and all
>>> third-party code using this interface will have to be rejiggered.
>>
>> So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common
>> cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more.
>
> I could go for that.
>
OK, I'll try to implement according to the idea.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>