Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Now, the first part of this works fine. But with the second part, I get
> a reduce/reduce conflict if I use any_name. Here's an excerpt from the
> verbose bison output:
>
> State 2920
>
> 1181 AlterObjectDependsStmt: ALTER TRIGGER name ON any_name DEPENDS . ON EXTENSION name
>
> ON shift, and go to state 3506
>
>
> State 2921
>
> 1165 RenameStmt: ALTER TRIGGER name ON qualified_name RENAME . TO name
>
> TO shift, and go to state 3507

Yeah, that ain't gonna work. If the existing ALTER TRIGGER production
uses "name ON qualified_name", switching to "name ON any_name" for the
new production is not going to work. You're going to have to make it
"name ON qualified_name" and deal with the fallout of that some other
way.

> I could change ExecAlterObjectDependsStmt() to check if stmt->relation
> is set, and if so, convert the RangeVar back to a List* in the right
> format before passing it to get_object_address. That would work fine,
> but it doesn't seem like a good solution.
>
> I could write some get_object_address_rv() wrapper that does essentially
> the same conversion, but that's only slightly better.

I might have a view on which of these alternatives is for the best at
some point in time, but I do not have one now.

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