Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL

From: "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL
Date: 2008-06-12 07:31:13
Message-ID: 34d269d40806120031r507b5ebanbfeb7f9826e692a1@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Agreed --- I committed what I had, anyone want to volunteer for
> refactoring the execution of DropStmt?

Sure! see the attached patch...

> After looking again, I think that this is not technically very
> difficult, but coming up with something that looks tasteful to everyone
> might be tricky.  In particular I didn't see a nice way to do it without
> using struct ObjectAddress in a bunch of header files that don't
> currently include dependency.h.  A possible response to that is to move
> ObjectAddress into postgres.h, but that seems a bit ugly too.

Ok I'm obviously missing something important... Why not Just make the
various Remove* functions take a list?

I'm not proposing this patch for actual submission, more of a would this work?
If I'm not missing something glaring obvious Ill go ahead and make the
rest of the Remove things behave the same way

Attachment: dropStmt_mutlidelete.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (7.4 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2008-06-12 13:10:33
Subject: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-06-11 22:11:47
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency infoin DETAIL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group