On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:23:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from David Fetter's message of jue mar 15 02:28:28 -0300 2012:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:06:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> > > >> I think that instead of inventing new grammar productions and a new
> > > >> node type for this, you should just reuse the existing productions for
> > > >> LIKE clauses and then reject invalid options during parse analysis.
> > > >
> > > > OK. Should I first merge CREATE FOREIGN TABLE with CREATE TABLE and
> > > > submit that as a separate patch?
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason to do that. I merely meant that you could
> > > reuse TableLikeClause or maybe even TableElement in the grammer for
> > > CreateForeignTableStmt.
> >
> > Next WIP patch attached implementing this via reusing TableLikeClause
> > and refactoring transformTableLikeClause().
> >
> > What say?
>
> Looks much better to me, but the use of strcmp() doesn't look good.
> ISTM that stmtType is mostly used for error messages.
Is it used for anything at all?
> I think you should add some kind of identifier (such as the original
> parser Node) into the CreateStmtContext so that you can do a IsA()
> test instead -- a bit more invasive as a patch, but much cleaner.
OK
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
