Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring
Date: 2019-01-23 17:32:06
Message-ID: 5606.1548264726@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It does. How does pgindent behave with it?

> It craps out:
> Error(at)3649: Unbalanced parens
> Warning(at)3657: Extra )

> But that can be worked around with something like

> te = ArchiveEntry(fout, tdinfo->dobj.catId, tdinfo->dobj.dumpId,
> ARCHIVE_ARGS(.tag = tbinfo->dobj.name,
> .namespace = tbinfo->dobj.namespace->dobj.name,
> .owner = tbinfo->rolname,
> .desc = "TABLE DATA",
> .section = SECTION_DATA,
> .copyStmt = copyStmt,
> .deps = &(tbinfo->dobj.dumpId),
> .nDeps = 1,
> .dumpFn = dumpFn,
> .dumpArg = tdinfo,
> ));
> which looks mildly simpler too.

That looks fairly reasonable from here, but I'd suggest
ARCHIVE_OPTS rather than ARCHIVE_ARGS.

Can we omit the initial dots if we use a wrapper macro? Would it be
a good idea to do so (I'm not really sure)?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-01-23 17:36:13 Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-01-23 17:25:09 Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring