Re: Comments on SQL/Med objects

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I had a private TODO about that.  I'd like to see if we can
>>>> refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there
>>>> as well as the potential for oversights of this sort.  I believe
>>>> that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch
>>>> of other basic places ...
>>
>>> Are you going to work on this?  If not I can pick it up, at least
>>> insofar as making the comment stuff work across the board.
>>
>> I'm still up to my rear in collations, so feel free.
>
> OK.  I'll work on it this week.

Attached. Foreign tables are already OK, I believe; it's only foreign
data wrappers and foreign servers that appear to need fixing.

The fact that foreign data wrapper is sometimes abbreviated to fdw and
sometimes not does nothing for the greppability of the code. I'm
wondering if we should go through and fix the constants that
abbreviate it:

ACL_KIND_FDW
ACL_ALL_RIGHTS_FDW
OBJECT_FDW
OCLASS_FDW

It seems to me that it would be a whole lot clearer and easier if
these all spelled it out FOREIGN_DATA_WRAPPER, as we do for similar
object types. Other than a pretty minute back-patch hazard, I don't
see much down side. Thoughts?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company