Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:09:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > attached a patch to clean up the call sites for FuncCall nodes, which
> > I'd like to expand centrally rather than in each of the 37 (or 38, but
> > I only redid 37) places where it's called. The remaining one is in
> > src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c, which has to be modified for any
> > changes in the that struct anyhow.
>
> TBH, I don't think this is an improvement.
>
> The problem with adding a new field to any struct is that you have to
> run around and examine (and, usually, modify) every place that
> manufactures that type of struct. With a makeFuncCall defined like
> this, you'd still have to do that; it would just become a lot easier
> to forget to do so.
>
> If the subroutine were defined like most other makeXXX subroutines,
> ie you have to supply *all* the fields, that argument would go away,
> but the notational advantage is then dubious.
>
> The bigger-picture point is that you're proposing to make the coding
> conventions for building FuncCalls different from what they are for
> any other grammar node. I don't think that's a great idea; it will
> mostly foster confusion.

The major difference between FuncCalls and others is that `while most
raw-parsetree nodes are constructed only in their own syntax
productions, FuncCall is constructed in many places unrelated to
actual function call syntax.

This really will make things a good bit easier on our successors.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate