On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a > general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is > some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArgs would be one such type, > Typename would be another, Value would be used for simple strings, and > we could create some other ones, or stick with lcons for some simple > cases. But then we don't have to make stuff into one-item lists to just > to satisfy the currently required List. > > That's the general idea. But that's a rather big change that I would > rather break down into smaller pieces. I have a separate patch in > progress for that, which I have attached here. It breaks some > regression tests in object_address.sql, which I haven't evaluated yet, > but that's the idea.
I think I disagree with this concept. I wouldn't shed many tears if objname and objargs got replaced with some other kind of name representation. But I don't think that should be done incrementally, because then we'll be in this transitional zone where it's unclear what the right way to do things is for a long time, possibly forever. I'd be fine with a plan to rip out objname/objargs and replace it with something less arbitrary, but until that's done I think new code should stick with the existing representations. -- 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
