Re: [HACKERS] Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0in catalog head files?

On 11/13/16 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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".

I'd think about converting about 75% of what is currently in the catalog
headers into some sort of built-in extension that is loaded via an SQL
script.  There are surely some details about that that would need to be
worked out, but I think that's a more sensible direction than inventing
another custom format.

I wonder how big the essential bootstrap set of pg_proc.h would be and
how manageable the file would be if it were to be reduced like that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services