From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: deparsing utility commands |
Date: | 2015-02-18 21:11:13 |
Message-ID: | 20150218211113.GH2500@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Now, we probably don't want to hack *all* the utility commands to return
> > ObjectAddress instead of OID, because it many cases that's just not
> > going to be convenient (not to speak of the code churn); so I think for
> > most objtypes the ProcessUtilitySlow stanza would look like this:
> That'd be fine with me, though for my 2c, I wouldn't object to changing
> them all to return ObjectAddress either. I agree that it'd cause a fair
> bit of code churn to do so, but there's a fair bit of code churn
> happening here anyway (looking at what 0008 does to ProcessUtilitySlow
> anyway).
Well, that would make my life easier I think (even if it's a bit more
work), so unless there are objections I will do things this way. It's a
bit of a pity that Robert and Dimitri went to huge lengths to have these
functions return OID and we're now changing it all to ObjAddress
instead, but oh well.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-02-18 21:32:55 | Re: deparsing utility commands |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-02-18 20:06:24 | Re: deparsing utility commands |