On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the
>>>> relkind checks is interesting in this regard.
>>>>
>>> I have not looked at Ashutosh's patch yet, but it sounds like a good
>>> idea to me.
>>
>> After looking I remain convinced - +1 in general.
>>
>
> Yes, I think this will probably help, but I worry that it will turn
> into quite a large and invasive patch, and there are a number of
> design choices to be made over the naming and precise set of macros.
> Is this really PG10 material?
No this is not for PG10.
>
> My initial thought, looking at the patch, is that it might be better
> to have all the macros in one file to make them easier to maintain.
>
Right now the macros are listed just below relkind enum in pg_class.h.
Is that a good place or do you think, we should list them in a
separate file?
>
> Barring objections, I'll push my original patch and work up patches
> for the other couple of issues I found.
No objections, the patch is good to go as is. Sorry for high-jacking
this thread.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company