Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So you have four (soon to be six or seven) different structs that *must*
>> have the same fields? I don't think that's cleaner than a union ...
> Please see my diffs. Its implemented via #define to declare all common
> #define RTE_COMMON_FIELDS \
> NodeTag type; \
I don't think that technique is cleaner than a union, either ;-).
The macro definition is a pain in the neck: you have to play games with
semicolon placement, most tools won't autoindent it nicely, etc etc.
But the main point is that I think NodeType = RangeTblEntry with
a separate subtype field is a better way to go than making a bunch of
different NodeType values. When most of the fields are common, as in
this case, it's going to be true that many places only want to know
"is it a rangetable entry or not?"
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mikheev, Vadim||Date: 2001-07-03 17:41:53|
|Subject: RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-07-03 17:06:25|
|Subject: Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |