On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:21:11PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-06 10:17:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:06:59PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Yea, that's a concern. OTOH, it doesn't seem nice to grow duplicates of
> > > similar code. It'd not be too hard to move RangeVarGetRelidExtended()
> > > code into RangeVarGetRelidInternal() and add
> > > RangeVarGetRelidTryLock(). Not sure if that's any better. Or just add
> > > RangeVarGetRelidExtended2() :)
> >
> > FWIW, it would have been nice to switch RangeVarGetRelidExtended
>
> What exactly do you mean with the paste tense here?
s/paste/past/? I mean "When RangeVarGetRelidExtended was created."
>> so as it handles a set of uint8 flags as one of its arguments.
>
> Right, that's what I was proposing. Although I'd just go for uint32,
> there's no benefit in uint8 here.
No objection to what you are suggested here.
>> Avoiding a new flavor of RangevarGet would be also nice, now
>> RangeVarGetRelidExtended() is likely popular enough in extensions that
>> much things would break.
>
> I can't follow?
Please, let's not have RangeVarGetRelidTryLock(), RangeVarGetRelidFoo()
or RangeVarGetRelidHoge(). This would make a third API designed at
doing the same thing...
--
Michael
