|From:||Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>|
|Cc:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binary reloptions representation for each relation kind instead|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
В письме от пятница, 30 ноября 2018 г. 23:57:21 MSK пользователь Dmitry Dolgov
> Looks like there are some problems with this patch on windows:
> src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c(1469): error C2059: syntax error :
Phew... It took me a while to get proper windows building environment... But
finally I did it...
This was some MSVC specific error, that happens when you create empty array or
something like this. I've rewritten that function to remove this array at
all. Now MSVC successfully builds it.
I also did some codestyle improvements, and rebased the patch against the
The new patch is in attachment.
> > I get that, but I strongly suggest not creating 10 loosely related
> > threads, but keeping it as a patch series in one thread. It's really
> > hard to follow for people not continually paying otherwise.
> Totally agree. Probably this also makes it harder to see the big picture
> behind this patch - which is in turn probably preventing it from getting
> some more review. I hope it doesn't sounds ridiculous, taking into account
> your efforts by splitting the patch, but maybe it makes sense to gather
> these pieces together (as a separate commits, of course) in one thread?
The big picture is following. I started from the task: Add possibility to set
up opclass parameters. (Nikita Glukhov now doing it)
I found an reloptions code, that does almost same thing, but it is not flexible
at all, and I can't reuse it for opclass parameters as it is now.
So I came to decision to rewrite reloptions code, so it can be used for
reloptions opclass options and any other kind of options we may need in
While rewriting the code, I found some places in the code that goes from what
seems to be a very long time, and also need refreshing.
This is one of the things.
It is not 100% necessary. Postgres will work with it as it is for ten years or
more. But since I've touched this part of the code, I want to make this code
more consistent, and more neat.
That's what I am doing. That is what all this patches about.
I'd be happy if we move this task at last.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2019-01-01 21:00:38||Re: Joins on TID|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-01-01 19:54:50||Re: Implicit make rules break test examples|