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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
