Re: [RFC] Common object property boards

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
>> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> >
>> >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
>> >> > lookup functions.
>> >> >
>> >> If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied
>> >> object type should be provided.
>> >>
>> >>   int get_object_property_catid_oidlookup(ObjectType);
>> >>   int get_object_property_catid_namelookup(ObjectType);
>> >>   Oid get_object_property_relation_id(ObjectType);
>> >>   AttrNumber get_object_property_nameattnum(ObjectType);
>> >>   AttrNumber get_object_property_namespacenum(ObjectType);
>> >>   AttrNumber get_object_property_ownershipnum(ObjectType);
>> >
>> > Maybe a single lookup function that receives pointers that the lookup
>> > routine can fill with the appropriate information; allowing for a NULL
>> > pointer in each, meaning caller is not interested in that property.
>>
>> That seems like a lot of extra notational complexity for no particular
>> benefit.  Every time someone wants to add a new property to this
>> array, they're going to have to touch every caller, and all
>> third-party code using this interface will have to be rejiggered.
>
> So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common
> cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more.

I could go for that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company