On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 06:28:19PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I though about it, and I am inclined to prefer pg_class instead separate
> tables.
>
> It true, so there are lot of "unused" attributes for this purpose, but
> there is lot of shared attributes, and lot of shared code. Semantically, I
> see variables in family of sequences, tables, indexes, views. Now, it
> shares code, and I hope in next steps more code can be shared -
> constraints, triggers.
>
> There are two objective arguments for using pg_class:
>
> 1. unique name in schema - it reduces risk of collisions
> 2. sharing lot of code
>
> So in this case I don't see well benefits of separate table.
Understood. I haven't strong opinion here though. But I thought that
pg_class approach may limit extensibility of variables.
BTW:
- there is unitialized variable 'j' in pg_dump.c:15422
- in tab-complete.c:1268 initialization needs extra NULL before
&Query_for_list_of_variables
Also I think makeRangeVarForTargetOfSchemaVariable() has non friendly
argument names 'field1', 'field2', 'field2'.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
