Re: mapping object names to role IDs
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: mapping object names to role IDs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimfwgcN5-V49-OMxNh10mPBGpKAzG5lSVHZXNmA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: mapping object names to role IDs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: mapping object names to role IDs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: >> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote: >>> Long story short, this is kind of a mess. > >> ... I think it would be good to have a >> consistant naming/calling scheme for these various functions, but I'm >> not sure that moving them all to the same place makes sense. > > I'm with Stephen on this one. I agree that standardizing the function > names and behavior would be a good idea, but don't try to put them all > in one place. Some of the existing functions are in lsyscache.c, some are in files in the commands directory, and some are in files in the parser directory; also, even between commands and parser, not every object type has its own file. It would be nice to bring some consistency to where the functions are located as well as what they do. Any thoughts on how to achieve that? > BTW, the plain-name cases should be "const char *", else some callers > will have to cast away const. You could possibly make an argument for > "const List *" in the qualified-name cases, but we don't do that > anywhere else so I think it'd just look funny here (and would require > internally casting away const, too). Makes sense. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: