I noticed that this patch uses names for some things (for example it gets the name of the access method), and then builds a IndexStmt which contains the name. I don't think this is a good idea. I think what should happen here is that the function to build indexes should be split in two: one to resolve the names and fill a structure with Oids of things, and another to get that structure and actually build the index or constraint. For example look into how GrantStmt is turned into InternalGrant, and the stuff in aclchk.c to work with that.
The index creation happens after the new table (which is LIKE the parent) has been created, by appending the cxt.alist information to "extras_after". The entry point for the index creation is thus via ProcessUtility which expects an IndexStmt structure. That is why the current patch does all the Oid to name mapping exercise to populate the relevant fields in IndexStmt some of which are char pointers. The internal DefineIndex function also expects most of the fields to be in IndexStmt like format. If we want to follow the above suggestion, as I understand it, we might have to devise a new structure to contain Oids and make ProcessUtility accept a new nodeTag. We will also not be able to use existing Index definition functions and this will lead to more coding IMHO. Do we want to go down this path? Or is there something else that has been suggested above and that I am missing completely? Please let me know. Regards, Nikhils -- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com