Re: Fwd: Proposal: variant of regclass

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hi Amit Kapila,
>
> Thank you for your reviewing. I updated the patch to v5.

I have checked the latest version and found few minor improvements that
are required:

1.
! if (!missing_ok)
! ereport(ERROR,
! (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
! errmsg("type \"%s\" does not exist",
! TypeNameToString(typeName)),
! parser_errposition(NULL, typeName->location)));

pfree(buf.data); seems to be missing in error cases.
Do you see any problem if we call it before calling LookupTypeName()
instead of calling at multiple places?

2.
+ raising an error. In addition, neither <function>to_regproc</function> nor
+ <function>to_regoper</function> doesn't raise an error when more than one
+ object are found.

No need to use word *doesn't* in above sentence.

3.
+ * If the type name is not found, return InvalidOid if missing_ok
+ * = true, otherwise raise an error.

I can understand above comment, but I think it is better to improve it
by reffering other such instances. I like the explanation of missing_ok
in function header of relation_openrv_extended(). Could you please check
other places and improve this comment.

4. How is user going to distinguish between the cases when object-not-found
and more-than-one-object.
Do you think such a distinction is not required for user's of this API?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com