| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring |
| Date: | 2019-01-17 15:23:39 |
| Message-ID: | 13281.1547738619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-16, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> ArchiveEntry((ArchiveArgs){.tablespace = 3,
>> .dumpFn = somefunc,
>> ...});
> Is there real savings to be had by doing this? What would be the
> arguments to each function? Off-hand, I'm not liking this idea too
> much.
I'm not either. What this looks like it will mainly do is create
a back-patching barrier, with little if any readability improvement.
I don't buy the argument that this would move the goalposts in terms
of how much work it is to add a new argument. You'd still end up
touching every call site.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2019-01-17 15:48:07 | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-17 15:05:50 | Re: Acceptable/Best formatting of callbacks (for pluggable storage) |