| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Custom variables and flags, again | 
| Date: | 2008-11-17 01:54:23 | 
| Message-ID: | 15777.1226886863@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What happens
>> when we add some field or other to those structs?
> There are problems when we modify the middle fields in those
> structs, but it means modification of existing arguments in
> DefineCustomXXXVariable(); The same problems occur in both
> implementations.
No, they are not the same problems.  You can rely on the C compiler
to complain if you aren't passing enough arguments to a function.
You can't rely on it to complain if your struct constant is putting
values into the wrong fields.
Perhaps more to the point, guc_tables.h is a file that we don't even
want the majority of the backend including.  Why would we think it's
a good idea to make that part of the public API to external modules?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-11-17 02:03:42 | Re: Custom variables and flags, again | 
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-11-17 01:12:10 | Re: Custom variables and flags, again |