NikhilS escribió:
> On 5/23/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> >NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com> writes:
> >> If so, I think we can introduce 2 Oid fields in the IndexStmt
> >> structure and store the Oids there. In DefineIndex we can use these
> >> Oids if they are not invalid.
> >
> >I think this is just make-work that causes the patch to complicate parts
> >of the system it didn't need to touch. The original suggestion was to
> >actively refactor existing code, which might or might not have been
> >worthwhile. But this isn't an appropriate substitute --- it's just
> >making the API uglier for no particular benefit.
>
> I agree this will unnecessary add arguments to the DefineIndex API. If we
> stick to the patch's earlier way of converting the Oid to names for just
> these 2 arguments, we can avoid this IMO.
>
> Considering that we will be generating this information from existing valid
> index information, I think converting the Oids to names is safe enough.
> Alvaro, do you think we should stick to the existing patch mechanism then
> considering that it avoids polluting the API?
Not sure. Is it possible that the schema is renamed while the operation
is being executed? If it's not then this not a problem at all so the
existing patch is fine.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
