| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using the new libpq connection functions in PostgreSQL binaries |
| Date: | 2010-01-31 17:51:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4B65C309.9080007@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/31/2010 09:42 AM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I don't find that horrid. AFAICT, that's the only advantage of the
> two-arrays method. By the way, it's that kind of code (keywords
> declaration separated from values declaration) that got commited in the
> previous patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00398.php).
> I merely used the same code for the other binaries.
Yes, I separated them, because otherwise the compiler complained about
the declaration not being at the top of a block. Of course Tom's other
complaint and this one can both be satisfied by not doing the static
assignment in the declaration.
I'll fix the already committed code and take a look at refactoring this
latest patch. I stand by the two arrays mthod decision though -- I find
combining them into a single array to be unseemly.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-31 17:51:10 | Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-01-31 17:42:50 | Re: Using the new libpq connection functions in PostgreSQL binaries |