Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE
Date: 2018-09-20 23:19:26
Message-ID: 20180920231926.7n4xresrhdbusxqy@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-09-20 19:03:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-09-20 18:38:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> hmmm ... but even with variadic, C's macro facility is so weak that
> >> I'm not sure we can reimplement these with it. What would the
> >> expansion look like?
>
> > There's a dirty hack to count arguments in vararg macros:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.std.c/d-6Mj5Lko_s/5fW1bP6T3RIJ
>
> Doesn't seem to help for this case. What we really want is to expand
> a given pattern once for each variadic argument, and I don't see how
> to get there from here.

Depends on whether your goal is to simplify *using* the macro, or the
infrastructure for the macro. Afaict it should be relatively
straightforward to use a, possibly simplified, macro like referenced
above to have TailMatches(...), TailMatchesCS(...), Matches(...) that
then expand to the current *N macros.

> Although maybe I'm thinking too much inside-the-box. The expansion
> doesn't necessarily have to be identical to the code the macros
> generate today. In fact, that code is kinda bulky. I wonder if
> we could go over to something involving a variadic function, or
> maybe an array of string-pointer constants?

Yea, that might be a way to simplify both the macros and the use of the
macros. Assuming we have something like PP_NARG, ISTM it should be
relatively straightforward to define something like

#define Matches(...) CheckMatchesFor(PP_NARG(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__)

and then have a CheckMatchesFor() first check previous_words_count, and
then just have a simple for loop through previous_words[] - afaict the
number of arguments ought to suffice to make that possible?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2018-09-20 23:40:40 transction_timestamp() inside of procedures
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-09-20 23:18:37 On-disk compatibility for nbtree-unique-key enhancement