Horton

Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>, Dent John <denty@qqdd.eu>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-11-14T05:09:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:29:49PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >> There could be an argument for keeping
> >> GET_STRING_RELOPTION actually which is still useful to get a string
> >> value in an option set using the stored offset, and we have
> >> the recently-added dummy_index_am in this category.  Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Not sure, maybe +0.5 on keeping GET_STRING_RELOPTION.
> 
> Thinking more about it, I would tend to keep this one around.  I'll
> wait a couple of days before coming back to it.

Committed this one and kept GET_STRING_RELOPTION().  With the removal
of those macros, it is possible to actually move a portion of the
parsing definitions to reloptions.c for each type, but as we expose
the validation function string and the enum element definition that
would be more confusing IMO, so I have left that out.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Refactor reloption handling for index AMs in-core

  2. Cleanup code in reloptions.h regarding reloption handling

  3. Refactor code building relation options

  4. Add some assertions to view reloption macros