| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options |
| Date: | 2019-11-13 07:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20191113073029.GW1549@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:50:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We have been through great length to have build_reloptions, so
> wouldn't it be better to also have this code path do so? Sure you
> need to pass NULL for the parsing table.. But there is a point to
> reduce the code paths using directly parseRelOptions() and the
> follow-up, expected calls to allocate and to fill in the set of
> reloptions.
So I have been looking at this one, and finished with the attached.
It looks much better to use build_reloptions() IMO, taking advantage
of the same sanity checks present for the other relkinds.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| use-empty-structure-for-partitioned-options_v4.diff | text/x-diff | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-13 07:34:49 | Re: Coding in WalSndWaitForWal |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-13 07:05:20 | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |