| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: anonymous unions (C11) |
| Date: | 2025-10-03 07:01:26 |
| Message-ID: | 16654b42-d65f-4f1f-9094-33422444a327@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23.09.25 16:17, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 11:38:22AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That said, I did go overboard here and converted all the struct/union
>> combinations I could find, but I'm not necessarily proposing to apply
>> all of them. I'm proposing patches 0001 through 0004, which are
>> relatively simple or in areas that have already changed a few times
>> recently (so backpatching would not be trivial anyway), and/or they
>> are somewhat close to my heart because they originally motivated this
>> work a long time ago. But if someone finds among the other patches
>> one that they particularly like, we could add that one as well.
>
> I would have used this in the DSM registry if it was available. Patch
> attached.
This looks good to me, and also mostly harmless in terms of backpatching.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2025-10-03 07:05:02 | Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-10-03 06:55:10 | Reorganize GUC structs |