2011/8/2 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011: >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011: >>> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> > >>> >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just >>> >> > individual >>> >> > lookup functions. >>> >> > >>> >> If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied >>> >> object type should be provided. >>> >> >>> >> int get_object_property_catid_oidlookup(ObjectType); >>> >> int get_object_property_catid_namelookup(ObjectType); >>> >> Oid get_object_property_relation_id(ObjectType); >>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_nameattnum(ObjectType); >>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_namespacenum(ObjectType); >>> >> AttrNumber get_object_property_ownershipnum(ObjectType); >>> > >>> > Maybe a single lookup function that receives pointers that the lookup >>> > routine can fill with the appropriate information; allowing for a NULL >>> > pointer in each, meaning caller is not interested in that property. >>> >>> That seems like a lot of extra notational complexity for no particular >>> benefit. Every time someone wants to add a new property to this >>> array, they're going to have to touch every caller, and all >>> third-party code using this interface will have to be rejiggered. >> >> So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common >> cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more. > > I could go for that. > OK, I'll try to implement according to the idea.
Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers