Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The problem with that approach is that then you are talking about building
>> duplicate copies of entire layers of the system. For example, namespace.c
>> would have to be duplicated into one copy that uses syscache and one that
>> uses this not-quite-cache. If it were *only* syscache.c that had to be
>> duplicated, probably this would work, but ruleutils.c depends on an awful
>> lot of code above that level. Indeed, if it did not, the idea of
>> reimplementing it on the client side wouldn't be so unattractive.
> Urgh. Does ruleutils.c really depend on everything in namespace.c?
Indirectly, probably most of it. For example, it uses format_type_be()
which depends on TypeIsVisible(), and it uses func_get_detail()
which depends on FuncnameGetCandidates(). And it's those intermediate
functions that are really bloating the depends-on footprint. As things
stand, ruleutils depends on significant fractions of backend/catalog/
and backend/parser/, all of which would have to be rewritten if you'd
like to make it use some alternate catalog-access infrastructure.
But really the killer point here is that it uses SPI in some places.
I've always wondered whether that was a good design choice, but right
now that implicates just about the whole backend.
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
