Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays
Date: 2019-11-12 05:17:42
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 04:13:03PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Hmm, but then what is your suggestion for existing code that uses {0}.
> If we reject this patch and leave the current code as it is, there is
> always a risk of some people using {0} and others using memset which
> will lead to further deviation in the code. Now, maybe if we change
> the existing code to always use memset where we use {0}, then we can
> kind of enforce such a rule for future patch authors.

Well, we could have a shot at reducing the footprint of {0} then where
we can. I am seeing less than a dozen in contrib/, and a bit more
than thirty in src/backend/. Or we could just do as we do with such
business: let's update them when we see that's adapted and when
modifying the surrounding area.

At least I see one conclusion coming out of this thread: the patch is
in the direction of getting rejected. My recommendation would be to
do that, and focus on other patches which could get merged: we have a
total of 220 entries in this CF.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-12 05:41:35 Re: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies.
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2019-11-12 05:17:06 Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)