Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> >
> >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
> >> > lookup functions.
> >> >
> >> If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied
> >> object type should be provided.
> >>
> >> int get_object_property_catid_oidlookup(ObjectType);
> >> int get_object_property_catid_namelookup(ObjectType);
> >> Oid get_object_property_relation_id(ObjectType);
> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_nameattnum(ObjectType);
> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_namespacenum(ObjectType);
> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_ownershipnum(ObjectType);
> >
> > Maybe a single lookup function that receives pointers that the lookup
> > routine can fill with the appropriate information; allowing for a NULL
> > pointer in each, meaning caller is not interested in that property.
>
> That seems like a lot of extra notational complexity for no particular
> benefit. Every time someone wants to add a new property to this
> array, they're going to have to touch every caller, and all
> third-party code using this interface will have to be rejiggered.
So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common
cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
