| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Generate pg_stat_get_* functions with Macros |
| Date: | 2022-12-03 20:16:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20221203201617.GA2647873@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:31:19AM +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 12/3/22 1:51 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Can we hard-code the prefix in the macro? It looks like all of these use
>> the same one.
>
> Good point! Done in V2 attached.
Thanks. I editorialized a bit in the attached v3. I'm not sure that my
proposed names for the macros are actually an improvement. WDYT?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-generate-some-pg_stat_get_-functions-with-macros.patch | text/x-diff | 17.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-12-03 20:57:44 | Re: Questions regarding distinct operation implementation |
| Previous Message | Ankit Kumar Pandey | 2022-12-03 19:57:40 | Re: Questions regarding distinct operation implementation |