> On Mar 21, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > My first inclination is to say it's probably ok. The immediately obvious > alternative would be to create yet another set of functions that don't > have classId parameters. That doesn't seem attractive. > > Modulo that issue I think patch 1 is basically ok, but we should fix the > comments in objectaccess.c. Rather than "It is [the] entrypoint ..." we > should have something like "Oid variant entrypoint ..." and "Name > variant entrypoint ...", and also fix the function names in the comments. Joshua, Do you care to create a new version of this, perhaps based on the v2-0001 patch I just posted? — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Andres Freund
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Justin Pryzby
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Andres Freund
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Andres Freund
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Andrew Dunstan
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Thomas Munro
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Andrew Dunstan
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Tom Lane
- Re: New Object Access Type hooks Mark Dilger