Joe Conway wrote: > On 08/02/2017 10:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> I think pg_class is a reasonable place to put more generic relkind lists > >>> alongside a matching error message for each, rather than specialized > >>> "does this relkind have storage" macros. What about something like a > >>> struct list in pg_class.h, > >> > >> I just noticed that this doesn't help at all with the initial problem > >> statement, which is that some of the relkind checks failed to notice > >> that partitioned tables needed to be added to the set. Maybe it still > >> helps because you have something to grep for, as Tom proposed elsewhere. > > > > Having something like relkind_i_t_T, though correct, doesn't make the > > test readable. That's another improvement because of using such > > macros. The macro name tells the purpose of the test, which is what a > > reader would be interested in, rather than the actual values used. > > +1
So add another layer: #define RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE relkind_i_t_T -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers