I have been mulling over this patch, and I can't seem to come to terms with it. I first started making it look nicer here and there, thinking it was all mostly okay, but eventually arrived at the idea that it seems wrong to do what this does: basically, get_object_address() tries to obtain an object address, and if that fails, return InvalidOid; then, in RemoveObjects, we try rather hard to figure out why that failed, and construct an error message.
It seems to me that it would make more sense to have get_object_address somehow return a code indicating what failed; then we don't have to go all over through the parser code once more. Perhaps, for example, when missing_ok is given as true to get_object_address it also needs to get a pointer to ObjectType and a string; if some object does not exist then fill the ObjectType with the failing object and the string with the failing name. Then RemoveObjects can construct a string more easily. Not sure how workable this exact idea is; maybe there is a better way. -- Álvaro Herrera 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
