From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using the new libpq connection functions in PostgreSQL binaries |
Date: | 2010-01-31 17:42:50 |
Message-ID: | 4B65C11A.7010405@lelarge.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 31/01/2010 17:35, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes:
>
>> */
>> do
>> {
>> + const char *values[] = {
>> + my_opts->hostname,
>> + my_opts->port,
>> + my_opts->dbname,
>> + my_opts->username,
>> + password,
>> + "oid2name",
>> + NULL
>> + };
>> +
>> new_pass = false;
>
> Is that really legal C89 syntax?
I don't really know. gcc (4.4.1 release) didn't complain about it,
whereas it complained with a warning for not-legal-syntax when I had the
"new_pass = false;" statement before the array declaration.
> I seem to recall that array
> constructors can only be used for static assignments with older
> compilers.
>
> Also, as a matter of style, I find it pretty horrid that this isn't
> immediately adjacent to the keywords array that it MUST match.
>
I don't find that horrid. AFAICT, that's the only advantage of the
two-arrays method. By the way, it's that kind of code (keywords
declaration separated from values declaration) that got commited in the
previous patch
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00398.php)
I merely used the same code for the other binaries.
--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2010-01-31 17:51:05 | Re: Using the new libpq connection functions in PostgreSQL binaries |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-31 17:38:12 | Re: odd output in initdb |