If you want to merge those functions, please do it as a separate patch now that the patch has been applied. Having too much unrelated stuff in a patch does confuse things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Stark wrote: > > Currently analyze.c and tablecmds.c both have some very similar code to handle > copying columns from "parent" tables. As long as they were just copying > columns and in the case of tablecmds.c copying check constraints that wasn't > really that bad an idea, the code is pretty simple. > > However with partitioned tables it becomes important to copy more table > attributes like foreign key constraints and hopefully one day indexes. And it > would be awfully convenient to have CREATE TABLE LIKE have options to copy the > same things that inherited tables get. And have exactly the same semantics. > > So I'm suggesting refactoring the code from analyze.c and tablecmds.c into > functions to copy the columns, constraints, indexes etc. > > For example I see a functions like: > > List *CopyTableColumns(relation source, List *target_schema) > List *CopyTableCheckConstraints(relation source, List *target_schema) > ... > > To do this though might require some changes in the algorithm used for > inherited tables. Currently it builds up the list of merged columns > incrementally. I'm thinking it would be more natural to accumulate all the > columns from parents and then remove duplicates in a single pass. I think it > should be possible to maintain precisely the same semantics doing this though. > > I may be able to make AddInherits a consumer for these functions as well, > though it would be a bit awkward since it would have to construct a fake list > of ColumnDefs to act as the target schema. It would have the side effect of > making the constraint comparison use change_varattnos_of_a_node and then > compare the binary representations rather than decompiling the constraints to > do the comparison. I'm not sure if that's the same semantics. > > To a certain degree I feel like this is just make-work. The existing code > works fine and I can just happily keep additing functionality to both > analyze.c and tablecmds.c. And it's possible we won't always want to have the > two match. > > Has anyone looked at applying the ADD INHERITS patch yet? Would it be more or > less likely to be accepted if it were a bigger patch that refactored all this > stuff like I'm talking about? > > -- > greg > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
