From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: creating extension including dependencies |
Date: | 2015-09-07 19:01:23 |
Message-ID: | 20150907190123.GA25484@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-09-07 20:56:50 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Yes that sounds cleaner. Just as a side note, List is a Node and does have
> copy support (and we pass List as DefElem->arg from gram.y in several
> places).
I know - but the list element in this case don't have copy support, no?
You seem to have put plain C strings in there, right?
> > 2) I don't like the control flow around the schema selection.
> >
> > It seems to be getting a bit arcane. How about instead moving the
> > "extension \"%s\" must be installed in schema \"%s\" check into the if
> > (control->schema != NULL) block and check for d_schema after it? That
> > should look cleaner.
> >
>
> I did something like that in one of the revisions, the complaint there was
> that it changes order of errors you get in situation when the schema is not
> the same as the one in control file and it also does not exist.
So what? That seems like a pretty harmless change - it's not like this
is something being hit day in/out right now.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-09-07 19:02:28 | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-09-07 18:56:50 | Re: creating extension including dependencies |