Re: deparsing utility commands

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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