Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> Tom Lane escribió:
> > 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?
... but I don't really see that this buys much of anything. I think a
better answer to this kind of problem would be
*** src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c 24 Mar 2009 20:17:09 -0000 1.24
--- src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c 3 Apr 2009 19:43:35 -0000
*************** transformRelOptions(Datum oldOptions, Li
*** 574,579 ****
--- 574,580 ---- { ReloptElem *def = lfirst(cell);
+ Assert(IsA(def, ReloptElem)); if (isReset) {
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
