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.
I didn't touch limit (I don't know if there will be some issue - still is far to upstream). This is technology, but workable, demo. I though so some users had a problem to imagine what is persistent variable in my view.
But almost all code and tests can be used for final version - only storage implementation is nothing more than workaround.
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
I found it too today when I did rebase. But thank you for report.
Also I think makeRangeVarForTargetOfSchemaVariable() has non friendly argument names 'field1', 'field2', 'field2'.
yes, I hadn't better names :(
In this routine I am doing diagnostic what semantic has sense for current values. the field1, field2 can be schema.variable or variable.field. So when I used semantic names: schema, varname, fieldname, then it was more messy (for me).
