Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20924.1479057590@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0in catalog head files?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: