On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> 2012-12-11 16:09 keltezéssel, Simon Riggs írta:
>
>> On 11 December 2012 12:18, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Such mechanism already exist - you just need to set
>>>>> your PGresult pointer to NULL after each PQclear().
>>>>
>>>> So why doesn't PQclear() do that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because then PQclear() would need a ** not a *. Do you want its
>>> interface changed for 9.3 and break compatibility with previous versions?
>>
>> No, but we should introduce a new public API call that is safer,
>> otherwise we get people continually re-inventing new private APIs that
>> Do the Right Thing, as the two other respondents have shown.
>>
>
> How about these macros?

* Use do { } while (0) around the macros to get proper statement behaviour.
* The if() is not needed, both PQclear and PQfinish do it internally.
* Docs

Should the names show somehow that they are macros?
Or is it enough that it's mentioned in documentation?

-- 
marko

In response to

• Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls at 2013-01-02 15:11:49 from Boszormenyi Zoltan

Responses

• Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls at 2013-01-02 15:52:36 from Heikki Linnakangas
• Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls at 2013-01-02 16:00:44 from Boszormenyi Zoltan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kohei KaiGai	Date: 2013-01-02 15:35:31
	Subject: Re: ALTER .. OWNER TO error mislabels schema as other object type
Previous:	From: Boszormenyi Zoltan	Date: 2013-01-02 15:11:49
	Subject: Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls