| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hao Lee <mixtrue(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? |
| Date: | 2016-11-13 17:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20924.1479057590@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-11-13 11:23:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can't use CREATE FUNCTION as the representation in the .bki file,
>> because of the circularities involved (you can't fill pg_proc before
>> pg_type nor vice versa). But I think Peter was suggesting that the
>> input to the bki-generator script could look like CREATE commands.
>> That's true, but I fear it would greatly increase the complexity
>> of the script for not much benefit.
> It'd also be very pg_proc specific, which isn't where I think this
> should go..
The presumption is that we have a CREATE command for every type of
object that we need to put into the system catalogs. But yes, the
other problem with this approach is that you need to do a lot more
work per-catalog to build the converter script. I'm not sure how
much of that could be imported from gram.y, but I'm afraid the
answer would be "not enough".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2016-11-13 17:52:00 | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscription |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-13 17:13:46 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |