| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |
| Date: | 2017-04-05 04:58:07 |
| Message-ID: | 19352.1491368287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>> Any objections?
> I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a
> is the right way to address the stdbool issue,
I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're right.
I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a
typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool,
because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing
so again. It'd make sense to me to do
+ #ifdef bool
+ #undef bool
+ #endif
to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is
supposed to provide. But there should be no reason to declare
our typedef a second time.
Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would
likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2017-04-05 05:15:12 | Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-05 04:42:12 | Re: Compiler warning in costsize.c |