Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo
Date: 2006-12-16 15:38:40
Message-ID: 29216.1166283520@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> BTW, what is the approved way to handle warnings about const? Copy the
> object?

Well, in the revised code there shouldn't be any warning at all, but
I think the mistake in your original was to declare the local variable
as "char *" instead of "const char *".

If "const" is being used as intended then a const-violation warning
would indeed suggest that you needed to make a writable copy.
Sometimes the problem is that you're working in a chunk of inadequately
const-ified code, ie, you're passing a const argument to some other
functions that do indeed treat their inputs as read-only but don't
declare them const. In such cases you can either run around and try to
inject const everywhere it should be, or hold your nose and use a cast,
or give up on marking your own argument const :-(. But you weren't
presented with that problem here, because connectOptions1() is already
const-ified.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-16 16:14:02 Re: Operator class group proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-16 15:26:52 Re: invalid input syntax for type timestamp.

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-12-17 03:47:33 Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-12-16 13:11:09 Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo