Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 07:02:49
Message-ID: 20170405070249.4evvu3nkaujoqvmx@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-05 00:58:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because
it's only going to get more common. We already do so in a way for c++
compilers...

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2017-04-05 07:03:02 Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries
Previous Message Vaishnavi Prabakaran 2017-04-05 07:00:42 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq