On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:21:11PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-03-06 10:17:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:06:59PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Yea, that's a concern. OTOH, it doesn't seem nice to grow duplicates of > > > similar code. It'd not be too hard to move RangeVarGetRelidExtended() > > > code into RangeVarGetRelidInternal() and add > > > RangeVarGetRelidTryLock(). Not sure if that's any better. Or just add > > > RangeVarGetRelidExtended2() :) > > > > FWIW, it would have been nice to switch RangeVarGetRelidExtended > > What exactly do you mean with the paste tense here?
s/paste/past/? I mean "When RangeVarGetRelidExtended was created." >> so as it handles a set of uint8 flags as one of its arguments. > > Right, that's what I was proposing. Although I'd just go for uint32, > there's no benefit in uint8 here. No objection to what you are suggested here. >> Avoiding a new flavor of RangevarGet would be also nice, now >> RangeVarGetRelidExtended() is likely popular enough in extensions that >> much things would break. > > I can't follow? Please, let's not have RangeVarGetRelidTryLock(), RangeVarGetRelidFoo() or RangeVarGetRelidHoge(). This would make a third API designed at doing the same thing... -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
