From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 00:59:23 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik1CXicUVGYsV6+sFdcSA9LzaXe259bT7WZAxaT@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 2. I haven't done anything about moving the definition of
>> ObjectAddress elsewhere, as Alvaro suggested, because I'm not sure
>> quite where it ought to go. I still think it's a good idea, though
>> I'm not dead set on it, either. Suggestions?
>
> I think the problem is you're trying to put this into backend/parser
> which is not really the right place for it. It's an execution-time
> animal not a parse-time animal. I would put it into backend/catalog,
> perhaps named objectaddress.c, and similarly the header file would be
> objectaddress.h. Then it would be reasonable to move struct
> ObjectAddress into this header and have dependency.h #include it.
> There might be some other stuff in dependency.c that more naturally
> belongs here, too.
If this isn't parse analysis, then you and I have very different ideas
of what parse analysis is. And under this theory, what are routines
like LookupAggNameTypeNames() doing in src/backend/parser?
I'll make the rest of the changes you suggest...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-08-17 01:18:29 | Re: security label support, part.2 |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2010-08-17 00:57:41 | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |