On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> I don't have a strong reason to keep these stuff in separate files.
> Both stuffs covers similar features and amount of code are enough small.
> So, the attached v4 just merged custom-node.[ch] stuff into extensible.
>
> Once we put similar routines closely, it may be better to consolidate
> these routines.
> As long as EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN == CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN, both features
> have identical structure layout, so it is easy to call an internal
> common function to register or find out a table of callbacks according
> to the function actually called by other modules.
>
> I'm inclined to think to replace EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN and
> CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN by NAMEDATALEN again, to fit structure layout.
I don't think that we need both EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN and
CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN; we can use EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN for both. I'm
opposed to using NAMEDATALEN for anything unrelated to the size of a
Name. If it's not being stored in a catalog, it doesn't need to care.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company