Re: generic pseudotype IO functions?

On 2014-01-06 11:56:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I think I am less concerned about pseudotypes.c than about bloating
> > pg_proc.h even further and about the annoyance of editing it - but I
> > guess that should rather be fixed by storing it in a more sensible
> > format at some point...
>
> Yeah, getting rid of a dozen pseudotype I/O functions is hardly going
> to reduce the PITA factor of editing pg_proc.h. It's interesting to
> think about moving all those DATA() macros into some more-maintainable
> format --- I'm not sure what it should be exactly, but I think something
> that can insert plausible defaults for omitted columns would be a big help
> for pg_proc and maybe some of the other catalogs too.

Alvaro previously suggested storing pg_proc in json. Not sure I like it,
but it'd sure be better than the current format if we derive unspecified
values from other columns (e.g. prorows = 0 iff proretset).

I think we also should auto-assign the oids for pg_proc (and some other
tables) rows if we go there. Afaics there's really not much reason to
keep them stable and it's by far the most frequent conflict I have seen
with keeping patches up2date.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services