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

Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs
Date: 2012-02-20 15:32:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZh-HEncWr_EZvz3kH3qMMv+m7VvrCkbaPTw2GiUF5QaQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> As per http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-02/msg00304.php
> there is no switch case in shdepReassignOwned for foreign data wrappers.
>
> The obvious short-term answer (and probably the only back-patchable one)
> is to add a case for that object type.  But after all the refactoring
> that's been done in the general area of this type of command, I'm a bit
> surprised that shdepReassignOwned still looks like this.  Can't we merge
> this knowledge into someplace where it doesn't have to be maintained
> separately?

Hmm.  I guess we could add function pointers to the ObjectProperty
array in objectaddress.c.  Then we could just search the array for the
catalog ID and call the associated function through the function
pointer, rather than having a switch in shdepReassignOwned().  Since
anyone adding a new object type ought to be looking at objectaddress.c
anyway, that would be one less place for people to forget to update.

However, I'm not 100% sure that's an improvement.  Switches by object
type are probably not going to go away...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-20 15:37:45
Subject: Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-20 15:22:50
Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

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