| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Smith, Peter" <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org" <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies. |
| Date: | 2019-12-23 03:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20191223034500.GE34339@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:54:47AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Well, _Static_assert has an error message, so we got to pass
> something. And having something like "array length mismatch", without
> referring again to the variable, doesn't strike me as that bad. We could
> of course just again pass the expression, this time stringified, but
> that doesn't seem an improvement.
Yeah, I would rather keep the second argument. I think that's also
more helpful as it gives more flexibility to extension authors willing
to make use of it.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2019-12-23 04:32:28 | Re: backup manifests |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-23 03:36:56 | Re: Fetching timeline during recovery |