| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq async duplicate error results |
| Date: | 2022-02-17 01:53:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20220217015308.mi24cnd4xwa46nbw@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-02-16 20:28:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2022-02-16 18:51:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> + /* Also, do nothing if the argument is OOM_result */
> >> + if (res == unconstify(PGresult *, &OOM_result))
> >> + return;
>
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to make res const, rather than unconstifying
> > &OOM_result?
>
> Uh ... then we'd have to cast away the const to do free().
I was just thinking of
if ((const PGresult *) res == &OOM_result)
It's not important, I just find it stylistically nicer (making a pointer const
from an non-const pointer is safe, the other way round not generally).
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-17 01:56:30 | Re: Small and unaffected typo in pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-17 01:50:52 | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |