On sön, 2010-05-23 at 00:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Oid get_object-type_oid(List *qualname, bool missingok);
-or-
Oid get_object-type_oid(char *name, bool missingok);
Thus get_database_oid and get_tablespace_oid would remain unchanged
except for taking a second argument, get_roleid and
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2010-05-23 at 00:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Oid get_object-type_oid(List *qualname, bool missingok);
-or-
Oid get_object-type_oid(char *name, bool missingok);
Thus get_database_oid and get_tablespace_oid would
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I still feel that we'd be better off putting all the functions that
use the same design pattern in a single file, rather than spreading
them out all over the backend. It's true that that one file will then
depend on all the catalog stuff, but it
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is nonsense
You can assert that, but I don't agree. We certainly have places
(comment.c being the obvious example) where we need to look up a name
and map it to an OID without doing anything else, and actually I
believe
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié may 26 07:20:30 -0400 2010:
I still feel that we'd be better off putting all the functions that
use the same design pattern in a single file, rather than spreading
them out all over the backend. It's true that that one file will then
depend on all
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:01 AM, alvherre alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié may 26 07:20:30 -0400 2010:
I still feel that we'd be better off putting all the functions that
use the same design pattern in a single file, rather than spreading
them out
alvherre alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié may 26 07:20:30 -0400 2010:
I still feel that we'd be better off putting all the functions that
use the same design pattern in a single file, rather than spreading
them out all over the backend.
This
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
alvherre alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié may 26 07:20:30 -0400 2010:
I still feel that we'd be better off putting all the functions that
use the same design pattern in a single
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié may 26 10:34:00 -0400 2010:
lsyscache.c might have no conceptual consistency but it's extremely
useful,
I know I've been annoyed by lsyscache: looking for accessors to catalog
stuff, not finding them and so creating my own by using syscache
directly,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Long story short, this is kind of a mess.
I agree that it's a bit of a mess.
What I would propose is that we create a new source
file somewhere (maybe utils/cache), move all of the other functions of
this type there, give them standardized names,
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Long story short, this is kind of a mess.
... I think it would be good to have a
consistant naming/calling scheme for these various functions, but I'm
not sure that moving them all to the same place makes
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Long story short, this is kind of a mess.
... I think it would be good to have a
consistant naming/calling scheme for these various
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm with Stephen on this one. I agree that standardizing the function
names and behavior would be a good idea, but don't try to put them all
in one place.
Some of the existing
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm with Stephen on this one. I agree that standardizing the function
names and behavior would be a good idea,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think both Stephen and I are saying we don't see merit in that.
Moving around pre-existing functions won't accomplish much except
causing include-list churn. Let's just standardize
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think both Stephen and I are saying we don't see merit in that.
Moving around pre-existing functions won't
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Not every object type has a file, and the existing functions are split
across three different directories, sometimes in files that don't
really pertain to the object type being dealt with. I think this is
going to be difficult to maintain if we
Suppose you have an object name as a CString and you want to convert
it to an OID. The method of doing this varies widely depending on the
object type:
oid = get_database_oid(name);
oid = get_tablespace_oid(name);
oid = GetForeignDataWrapperOidByName(name, true);
oid =
And of course I meant for the subject line to be mapping object names
to OIDs, not role IDs.
Sigh.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
19 matches
Mail list logo
