On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011: >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual >> > lookup functions. >> > >> If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied >> object type should be provided. >> >> int get_object_property_catid_oidlookup(ObjectType); >> int get_object_property_catid_namelookup(ObjectType); >> Oid get_object_property_relation_id(ObjectType); >> AttrNumber get_object_property_nameattnum(ObjectType); >> AttrNumber get_object_property_namespacenum(ObjectType); >> AttrNumber get_object_property_ownershipnum(ObjectType); > > Maybe a single lookup function that receives pointers that the lookup > routine can fill with the appropriate information; allowing for a NULL > pointer in each, meaning caller is not interested in that property.
That seems like a lot of extra notational complexity for no particular benefit. Every time someone wants to add a new property to this array, they're going to have to touch every caller, and all third-party code using this interface will have to be rejiggered. I still think that just returning a pointer to the struct is a perfectly sensible API... -- 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
