Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal: - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal:
Date
Msg-id 200208150243.g7F2h1Z04671@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal:  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal:  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Sorry. this patch fails to apply.  A change to catalog/heap.c doesn't
seem to fit anywhere.  I have attached the reject.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > If you did it that way then you'd not need that ugly kluge in
> > RemoveType.  What you'd need instead is some smarts (a kluge!?) in
> > setting up the dependency.  Currently that dependency is made in
> > TypeCreate which doesn't know what sort of relation it's creating
> > a type for.  Probably the best answer is to pull that particular
> > dependency out of TypeCreate, and make it (in the proper direction)
> > in AddNewRelationType.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > Also, I'm not following the point of the separation between
> > DefineCompositeType and DefineCompositeTypeRelation; nor do I see a need
> > for a CommandCounterIncrement call in there.
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> > You have missed a number of places where this new relkind ought to
> > be special-cased the same way RELKIND_VIEW is --- for example
> > CheckAttributeNames and AddNewAttributeTuples, since a composite type
> > presumably shouldn't have system columns associated.  I'd counsel
> > looking at all references to RELKIND_VIEW to see which places also need
> > to check for RELKIND_COMPOSITE_TYPE.
>
> Yup, I had missed lots of things, not the least of which was pg_dump.
> New patch attached includes pg_dump, psql (\dT), docs, and regression
> support.
>
> There is also a small adjustment to the expected output file for
> select-having. I was getting a regression failure based on ordering of
> the results, so I added ORDER BY clauses.
>
> Passes all regression tests. If no more objections, please apply.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
***************
*** 764,770 ****
      /*
       * We create the disk file for this relation here
       */
!     if (relkind != RELKIND_VIEW)
          heap_storage_create(new_rel_desc);

      /*
--- 764,770 ----
      /*
       * We create the disk file for this relation here
       */
!     if (relkind != RELKIND_VIEW && relkind != RELKIND_COMPOSITE_TYPE)
          heap_storage_create(new_rel_desc);

      /*

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: little psql additions