Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribi�:
> >> Surely this will break other things. I find myself wondering why you
> >> invented ReloptElem at all, instead of adding a field to DefElem.
>
> > I had to, precisely because it messes up other uses of DefElem ...
>
> > For example, the grammar would allow
> > CREATE FUNCTION ... WITH something.name = value
> > which we certainly don't want.
>
> Well, you could still have separate productions that did or didn't allow
> qualified names there (or perhaps better, have the code in
> functioncmds.c reject qualified names). I think the use of two different
> node types is going to result in duplicate coding and/or bugs deeper in
> the system, however.
I think what drove me away from that (which I certainly considered at
some point) was the existance of OptionDefElem. Maybe it would work to
make RelOptElem similar to that, i.e. have a char *namespace and a
DefElem?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
