From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |
Date: | 2014-10-03 20:53:00 |
Message-ID: | 20141003205300.GW28859@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > ahh, ok, that makes a bit more sense, sorry for missing it. Still makes
> > me wonder why objargs gets special treatment at the top of the function
> > and objnames doesn't- seems like both should be initialized either
> > before being passed in (and perhaps an Assert to verify that they are),
> > or they should both be initialized, but I tend to prefer just Assert'ing
> > that they are correct on entry- either both are valid pointers to empty
> > lists, or both NULL.
>
> I guess I could initialize objnames to NIL also. I initialize objargs
> because that one is unused for a lot of object types (so I would have to
> set it to NIL in cases where it's not used), whereas objnames is always
> used and thus we know it's always initialized later.
>
> Maybe what I need here is just a longer comment explaining this ...
A one-line comment that it's always reset below would be sufficient for me.
Thanks for explaining it :),
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-03 20:54:23 | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-10-03 20:49:57 | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |