Re: [HACKERS] remove deprecated COMMENT ON RULE syntax

[Robert Haas]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
>> There is support for COMMENT ON RULE  without specifying a table
>> name, for upgrading from pre-7.3 instances.  I think it might be time
>> for that workaround to go.
>
> No objection here.

Yeah, probably so.

-- 
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

Re: [HACKERS] remove deprecated COMMENT ON RULE syntax

[Tom Lane]

Peter Eisentraut  writes:
> There is support for COMMENT ON RULE  without specifying a table
> name, for upgrading from pre-7.3 instances.  I think it might be time
> for that workaround to go.

No objection here.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] remove deprecated COMMENT ON RULE syntax

[Peter Eisentraut]

There is support for COMMENT ON RULE  without specifying a table
name, for upgrading from pre-7.3 instances.  I think it might be time
for that workaround to go.

Patch attached.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From d15411c389659ac789199e46edaa2de43768e600 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:45:14 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Remove deprecated COMMENT ON RULE syntax

This was only used for allowing upgrades from pre-7.3 instances, which
was a long time ago.
---
 src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c| 126 -
 src/backend/parser/gram.y  |  10 --
 src/backend/rewrite/rewriteSupport.c   |  55 -
 src/include/rewrite/rewriteSupport.h   |   2 -
 .../test_ddl_deparse/expected/comment_on.out   |   2 +-
 .../modules/test_ddl_deparse/sql/comment_on.sql|   2 +-
 src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out   |   4 +-
 7 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c b/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c
index 9029477d68..cc636e2e3e 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c
@@ -1325,6 +1325,8 @@ get_object_address_relobject(ObjectType objtype, List *objname,
 	Relation	relation = NULL;
 	int			nnames;
 	const char *depname;
+	List	   *relname;
+	Oid			reloid;
 
 	/* Extract name of dependent object. */
 	depname = strVal(llast(objname));
@@ -1332,88 +1334,58 @@ get_object_address_relobject(ObjectType objtype, List *objname,
 	/* Separate relation name from dependent object name. */
 	nnames = list_length(objname);
 	if (nnames < 2)
-	{
-		Oid			reloid;
-
-		/*
-		 * For compatibility with very old releases, we sometimes allow users
-		 * to attempt to specify a rule without mentioning the relation name.
-		 * If there's only rule by that name in the entire database, this will
-		 * work.  But objects other than rules don't get this special
-		 * treatment.
-		 */
-		if (objtype != OBJECT_RULE)
-			elog(ERROR, "must specify relation and object name");
-		address.classId = RewriteRelationId;
-		address.objectId =
-			get_rewrite_oid_without_relid(depname, , missing_ok);
-		address.objectSubId = 0;
-
-		/*
-		 * Caller is expecting to get back the relation, even though we didn't
-		 * end up using it to find the rule.
-		 */
-		if (OidIsValid(address.objectId))
-			relation = heap_open(reloid, AccessShareLock);
-	}
-	else
-	{
-		List	   *relname;
-		Oid			reloid;
+		ereport(ERROR,
+(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ errmsg("must specify relation and object name")));
 
-		/* Extract relation name and open relation. */
-		relname = list_truncate(list_copy(objname), nnames - 1);
-		relation = heap_openrv_extended(makeRangeVarFromNameList(relname),
-		AccessShareLock,
-		missing_ok);
+	/* Extract relation name and open relation. */
+	relname = list_truncate(list_copy(objname), nnames - 1);
+	relation = heap_openrv_extended(makeRangeVarFromNameList(relname),
+	AccessShareLock,
+	missing_ok);
 
-		reloid = relation ? RelationGetRelid(relation) : InvalidOid;
+	reloid = relation ? RelationGetRelid(relation) : InvalidOid;
 
-		switch (objtype)
-		{
-			case OBJECT_RULE:
-address.classId = RewriteRelationId;
-address.objectId = relation ?
-	get_rewrite_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) : InvalidOid;
-address.objectSubId = 0;
-break;
-			case OBJECT_TRIGGER:
-address.classId = TriggerRelationId;
-address.objectId = relation ?
-	get_trigger_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) : InvalidOid;
-address.objectSubId = 0;
-break;
-			case OBJECT_TABCONSTRAINT:
-address.classId = ConstraintRelationId;
-address.objectId = relation ?
-	get_relation_constraint_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) :
-	InvalidOid;
-address.objectSubId = 0;
-break;
-			case OBJECT_POLICY:
-address.classId = PolicyRelationId;
-address.objectId = relation ?
-	get_relation_policy_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) :
-	InvalidOid;
-address.objectSubId = 0;
-break;
-			default:
-elog(ERROR, "unrecognized objtype: %d", (int) objtype);
-/* placate compiler, which doesn't know elog won't return */
-address.classId = InvalidOid;
-address.objectId = InvalidOid;
-address.objectSubId = 0;
-		}
+	switch (objtype)
+	{
+		case OBJECT_RULE:
+			address.classId = RewriteRelationId;
+			address.objectId = relation ?
+get_rewrite_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) : InvalidOid;
+			address.objectSubId = 0;
+			break;
+		case OBJECT_TRIGGER:
+			address.classId = TriggerRelationId;
+			address.objectId = relation ?
+get_trigger_oid(reloid, depname, missing_ok) : InvalidOid;
+			address.objectSubId = 0;
+			break;
+		case OBJECT_TABCONSTRAINT:
+			address.classId = ConstraintRelationId;
+