On 06/12/2017 11:33 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: >> After looking I remain convinced - +1 in general. > > Yes, I think this will probably help, but I worry that it will turn > into quite a large and invasive patch, and there are a number of > design choices to be made over the naming and precise set of macros. > Is this really PG10 material?
I was wondering the same after responding. Possibly not. > My initial thought, looking at the patch, is that it might be better > to have all the macros in one file to make them easier to maintain. Yeah, that was my thought as well. >> sync in the future. Maybe something like this: >> 8<----------------- >> "\"%s\" is not a kind of relation that can have column comments" >> 8<----------------- >> Thoughts? > > -1. I think the existing error messages provide useful information > that you'd be removing. If you're worried about the error messages > getting out of sync, then wouldn't it be better to centralise them > along with the corresponding macros? I guess that could work too. > Barring objections, I'll push my original patch and work up patches > for the other couple of issues I found. No objections here -- we definitely need to fix those. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
