Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Attached is a patch moving the reloptions of views into its own structure.
> i also created a view_reloptions() function in order to not use
> heap_reloptions() for views, but maybe that was too much?
No, that was part of what I was thinking too -- I have pushed this now.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I just noticed by chance that view relations are using StdRdOptions to
> allocate their reloptions. I can't find any reason for this, other than
> someone failed to realize that they should instead have a struct defined
> of its own, just l
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I just noticed by chance that view relations are using StdRdOptions to
> allocate their reloptions. I can't find any reason for this, other than
> someone failed to realize that they should instead have a struct defined
> of its own, just
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Is it too late to redefine the check_option_offset stuff before 9.4
> ships, so that it is in its own struct?
We have a forced initdb already for beta2, so I'd say not.
> 3) I don't have time to do the legwork before CF1 anyway
... but if nobody does the work, it's moot
I just noticed by chance that view relations are using StdRdOptions to
allocate their reloptions. I can't find any reason for this, other than
someone failed to realize that they should instead have a struct defined
of its own, just like (say) GIN indexes do. Views using StdRdOptions is
quite poi
