From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: refactoring comment.c |
Date: | 2010-08-17 18:24:40 |
Message-ID: | 19953.1282069480@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Rereading this, I see I didn't make my point very clearly. The reason
>> this code doesn't belong in parser/ is that there's no prospect the
>> parser itself would ever use it. ObjectAddress is an execution-time
>> creature because we don't want utility statement representations to be
>> resolved to OID-level detail before they execute.
> Well, that is a good reason for doing it your way, but I'm slightly
> fuzzy on why we need a crisp separation between parse-time and
> execution-time.
I don't insist that the separation has to be crisp. I'm merely saying
that putting a large chunk of useful-only-at-execution-time code into
backend/parser is the Wrong Thing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-08-17 18:24:43 | Re: security label support, part.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-17 18:21:42 | Additional git conversion steps |