| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |
| Date: | 2019-11-14 05:09:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20191114050942.GD1910@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:29:49PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >> There could be an argument for keeping
> >> GET_STRING_RELOPTION actually which is still useful to get a string
> >> value in an option set using the stored offset, and we have
> >> the recently-added dummy_index_am in this category. Any thoughts?
> >
> > Not sure, maybe +0.5 on keeping GET_STRING_RELOPTION.
>
> Thinking more about it, I would tend to keep this one around. I'll
> wait a couple of days before coming back to it.
Committed this one and kept GET_STRING_RELOPTION(). With the removal
of those macros, it is possible to actually move a portion of the
parsing definitions to reloptions.c for each type, but as we expose
the validation function string and the enum element definition that
would be more confusing IMO, so I have left that out.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-11-14 06:12:21 | Re: dropdb --force |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-14 04:10:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |