Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
> 
> I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in 
> separate thread. So it is new thread.

Splitting concepts into different threads may be fine, and usually
recommended.  Splitting a set of patches into multiple entries to ease
review and your goal to get a patch integrated and posted all these
into the same thread is usually recommended.  Now posting a full set
of patches across multiple threads, in way so as they have
dependencies with each other, is what I would call a confusing
situation.  That's hard to follow.

> The idea of this patch is following: If you read the code, partitioned tables 
> do not have any options (you will not find RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED in 
> boolRelOpts, intRelOpts, realRelOpts, stringRelOpts and enumRelOpts in 
> reloption.c), but it uses StdRdOptions to store them (these no options).

I am not even sure that we actually need that.  What kind of reloption
you would think would suit into this subset?
--
Michael