Re: refactoring comment.c

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?