On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > I don't have a strong reason to keep these stuff in separate files. > Both stuffs covers similar features and amount of code are enough small. > So, the attached v4 just merged custom-node.[ch] stuff into extensible. > > Once we put similar routines closely, it may be better to consolidate > these routines. > As long as EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN == CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN, both features > have identical structure layout, so it is easy to call an internal > common function to register or find out a table of callbacks according > to the function actually called by other modules. > > I'm inclined to think to replace EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN and > CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN by NAMEDATALEN again, to fit structure layout.
I don't think that we need both EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN and CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN; we can use EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN for both. I'm opposed to using NAMEDATALEN for anything unrelated to the size of a Name. If it's not being stored in a catalog, it doesn't need to care. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
