On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I don't see any problems with 0001. > > I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs -> > args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct, so there is no confusion > when used with operators?
FuncWithArgs implies that this is related to a function, so removing func as prefix may make things cleaner. >> One comment though: there are still many list_make2() or even >> list_make3 calls for some object types. Would it make sense to replace >> those lists with a decided number of items by a Node and simplify the >> interface? > > (I don't see any list_make3.) Indeed, I am watching too much code. > It would be nice to refine this further, > but the remaining uses are quite marginal. The main problem was that > before you had to create singleton lists and then unpack them, because > there was no other way. The remaining uses are more genuine lists or lcons. OK. Of course, I am not saying that this patch in particular should shake more the world. I have been just trying to point out future potential improvements and keep a trace of them in the archives while thinking about it. >> In 0005, a nit: >> +DROP FUNCTION functest_IS_1(int, int, text), functest_IS_2(int), >> functest_IS_3(int); >> -- Cleanups >> The DROP query could be moved below the cleanup comment. > > I can do that, but the idea was that the commands below the cleanups > line weren't really tests. That's a nit, you can ignore that. >> While looking at 0006... DROP POLICY and DROP RULE could be unified. I >> just noticed that while reading the code. > > DROP TRIGGER also looks similar. drop_type3 then. ;-) Or drop_type_on, drop_type_on_table, etc. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers