Re: mapping object names to role IDs

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> Long story short, this is kind of a mess.

> ... I think it would be good to have a
> consistant naming/calling scheme for these various functions, but I'm
> not sure that moving them all to the same place makes sense.

I'm with Stephen on this one. I agree that standardizing the function
names and behavior would be a good idea, but don't try to put them all
in one place.

BTW, the plain-name cases should be "const char *", else some callers
will have to cast away const. You could possibly make an argument for
"const List *" in the qualified-name cases, but we don't do that
anywhere else so I think it'd just look funny here (and would require
internally casting away const, too).

regards, tom lane