Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs
Date: 2018-08-30 16:54:41
Message-ID: 20180830165441.a6eyu52n3n65v6m4@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Aug-30, Mark Dilger wrote:

> static struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] =
> {
> {
> {"enable_seqscan", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
> gettext_noop("Enables the planner's use of sequential-scan plans."),
> },
> &enable_seqscan,
> true,
> },

Personally, I dislike this form -- it's very opaque and I have to refer
to the struct definition each time I want to add a new member, to make
sure I'm assigning the right thing. I welcome designated initializers
in this case even though it becomes more verbose. I don't think
explicitly initializing to NULLs is sensible in this case; let's just
omit those fields.

> What should the general rule be for initializing arrays of structs such as these?

I don't know what a general rule would be. Maybe we can try hand-
inspecting a few cases, and come up with a general rule once we acquire
sufficient experience.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-30 17:28:48 Re: Add a semicolon to query related to search_path
Previous Message Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?= 2018-08-30 16:54:23 Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE