Tom Lane escribió: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Tom Lane escribi�: > >> Surely this will break other things. I find myself wondering why you > >> invented ReloptElem at all, instead of adding a field to DefElem. > > > I had to, precisely because it messes up other uses of DefElem ... > > > For example, the grammar would allow > > CREATE FUNCTION ... WITH something.name = value > > which we certainly don't want. > > Well, you could still have separate productions that did or didn't allow > qualified names there (or perhaps better, have the code in > functioncmds.c reject qualified names). I think the use of two different > node types is going to result in duplicate coding and/or bugs deeper in > the system, however.
I think what drove me away from that (which I certainly considered at some point) was the existance of OptionDefElem. Maybe it would work to make RelOptElem similar to that, i.e. have a char *namespace and a DefElem? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
