Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take

Hi,

On 2019-01-15 14:37:36 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Then for each of the calls, we would need to declare that structure
> variable (with = {0}) and assign required fields in that structure
> before passing it to ArchiveEntry(). But a major reason of
> ArchiveEntry() is to avoid doing this and instead conveniently pass
> those fields as parameters. This will cause unnecessary more lines of
> code. I think better way is to have an ArchiveEntry() function with
> limited number of parameters, and have an ArchiveEntryEx() with those
> extra parameters which are not needed in usual cases.

I don't think that'll really solve the problem. I think it might be more
reasonable to rely on structs. Now that we can rely on designated
initializers for structs we can do something like

ArchiveEntry((ArchiveArgs){.tablespace = 3,
.dumpFn = somefunc,
...});

and unused arguments will automatically initialized to zero. Or we
could pass the struct as a pointer, might be more efficient (although I
doubt it matters here):

ArchiveEntry(&(ArchiveArgs){.tablespace = 3,
.dumpFn = somefunc,
...});

What do others think? It'd probably be a good idea to start a new
thread about this.

Greetings,

Andres Freund