| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |
| Date: | 2020-02-06 03:10:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20200206031030.f7vgehw6kzile5ss@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-02-05 10:40:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm pretty unimpressed with the enum proposal - I think it's pretty
> nasty for an extension author to have to make up a value that's not in
> the enum. One, how are they supposed to know that they should do that?
> Two, how are they supposed to know that the code doesn't actually
> depend on that enum value for anything important? And three, how do
> they know that the compiler isn't going to hose them by assuming that
> isn't a can't-happen scenario?
>
> I mean, I'd rather get a patch committed here than not, but I have a
> hard time understanding why this is a good way to go.
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-02-06 03:17:14 | Re: typos in comments and user docs |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-06 03:09:08 | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |