From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
Date: | 2016-11-27 22:02:14 |
Message-ID: | 20161127220214.v5fnwccwtxwq5jih@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-11-27 22:21:49 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 27/11/16 21:47, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> +typedef struct SlabBlockData *SlabBlock; /* forward reference */
> >>> +typedef struct SlabChunkData *SlabChunk;
> >>>
> >>> Can we please not continue hiding pointers behind typedefs? It's a bad
> >>> pattern, and that it's fairly widely used isn't a good excuse to
> >>> introduce further usages of it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why is it a bad pattern?
> >
> > It hides what is passed by reference, and what by value, and it makes it
> > a guessing game whether you need -> or . since you don't know whether
> > it's a pointer or the actual object. All to save a * in parameter and
> > variable declaration?...
> >
>
> FWIW I don't like that pattern either although it's used in many parts
> of our code-base.
But relatively few new ones, most of it is pretty old.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2016-11-27 22:42:47 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-11-27 21:45:08 | Re: [PATCH] ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with GRANT/REVOKE ON SCHEMAS |