On 2014-01-06 11:56:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I think I am less concerned about pseudotypes.c than about bloating > > pg_proc.h even further and about the annoyance of editing it - but I > > guess that should rather be fixed by storing it in a more sensible > > format at some point... > > Yeah, getting rid of a dozen pseudotype I/O functions is hardly going > to reduce the PITA factor of editing pg_proc.h. It's interesting to > think about moving all those DATA() macros into some more-maintainable > format --- I'm not sure what it should be exactly, but I think something > that can insert plausible defaults for omitted columns would be a big help > for pg_proc and maybe some of the other catalogs too.
Alvaro previously suggested storing pg_proc in json. Not sure I like it, but it'd sure be better than the current format if we derive unspecified values from other columns (e.g. prorows = 0 iff proretset). I think we also should auto-assign the oids for pg_proc (and some other tables) rows if we go there. Afaics there's really not much reason to keep them stable and it's by far the most frequent conflict I have seen with keeping patches up2date. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
