Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?
Date
Msg-id 20924.1479057590@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0in catalog head files?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-11-13 11:23:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can't use CREATE FUNCTION as the representation in the .bki file,
>> because of the circularities involved (you can't fill pg_proc before
>> pg_type nor vice versa).  But I think Peter was suggesting that the
>> input to the bki-generator script could look like CREATE commands.
>> That's true, but I fear it would greatly increase the complexity
>> of the script for not much benefit.

> It'd also be very pg_proc specific, which isn't where I think this
> should go..

The presumption is that we have a CREATE command for every type of
object that we need to put into the system catalogs.  But yes, the
other problem with this approach is that you need to do a lot more
work per-catalog to build the converter script.  I'm not sure how
much of that could be imported from gram.y, but I'm afraid the
answer would be "not enough".
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Tackling JsonPath support
Next
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscription