On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> That didn't quite work, because there's a caller in typecmds.c that >> doesn't have the relation handy. So I made it take a relkind and a >> name, which works fine. > > Hmm, indeed. In get_rels_with_domain(), it's a scalar type.
Yeeeeeeah, that's actually a little ugly. It's actually a domain over a composite type, not a composite type proper, IIUC. Better ideas? >> The attached patch takes this approach. It's very slightly more code, >> but it reduces the amount of spooky action at a distance. > >> Comments? > > Your patch improves the code. My standard for commending a refactor-only > patch > is rather high, though, and this patch doesn't reach it. The ancestral code > placement wasn't obviously correct, but neither is this. So I'd vote -0. Well, what's your suggestion, then? Your patch pops the test up from ATRewriteTable() up to ATRewriteTables(), but that's not obviously correct either, and it's an awkward place to do it because we don't have the Relation object handy at the point where the check needs to be done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
