On 06/12/2017 11:33 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> After looking I remain convinced - +1 in general.
> Yes, I think this will probably help, but I worry that it will turn
> into quite a large and invasive patch, and there are a number of
> design choices to be made over the naming and precise set of macros.
> Is this really PG10 material?

I was wondering the same after responding. Possibly not.

> My initial thought, looking at the patch, is that it might be better
> to have all the macros in one file to make them easier to maintain.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

>> sync in the future. Maybe something like this:
>> 8<-----------------
>>    "\"%s\" is not a kind of relation that can have column comments"
>> 8<-----------------
>> Thoughts?
> -1. I think the existing error messages provide useful information
> that you'd be removing. If you're worried about the error messages
> getting out of sync, then wouldn't it be better to centralise them
> along with the corresponding macros?

I guess that could work too.

> Barring objections, I'll push my original patch and work up patches
> for the other couple of issues I found.

No objections here -- we definitely need to fix those.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to