On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: >> On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>>> As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the >>>> relkind checks is interesting in this regard. >>>> >>> I have not looked at Ashutosh's patch yet, but it sounds like a good >>> idea to me. >> >> 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?
No this is not for PG10. > > 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. > Right now the macros are listed just below relkind enum in pg_class.h. Is that a good place or do you think, we should list them in a separate file? > > Barring objections, I'll push my original patch and work up patches > for the other couple of issues I found. No objections, the patch is good to go as is. Sorry for high-jacking this thread. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
