On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>
>> Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the
>> conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c. Not sure if
>> that's what you were going for or if there's another issue. Updated
>> patch attached.
>
> FWIW I think the reloptions code in this patch is sane enough. The fact
> that it was this easily written means that the API for reloptions was
> reasonably chosen, thanks :-)
:-)
Actually, there are some things about it that I'm not entirely happy
with, but I haven't brought them up because I don't have a clear idea
what I think we should do about them. The special-case hack to handle
the "oids" option is one of them.... another, possibly related, is
that I wish we could decouple the options-validation logic from the
backend storage representation. But those are issues for a future
thread. I do think it's pretty well-done overall.
> Hmm, it seems we're missing a "need_initialization = false" at the
> bottom of initialize_reloptions ... I'm wondering what happened to
> that??
It appears that it has never been there.
$ git log -Sneed_initialization master src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c
commit f35e4442a6c9893e72fe870d9e1756262d542027
Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: Mon Jan 5 17:14:28 2009 +0000
Change the reloptions machinery to use a table-based parser, and provide a more complete framework for writing
customoption processing routines by user-defined access methods.
Catalog version bumped due to the general API changes, which are going to affect user-defined "amoptions"
routines.
That was the original patch that added need_initialization, and it
didn't add that line.
...Robert
