Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset
Date: 2022-03-02 17:04:59
Message-ID: 621FA3BB.4090509@anastigmatix.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/02/22 02:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> system function marked as proretset while it builds and returns only
> one record. And this is a popular one: pg_stop_backup(), labelled
> v2.

I had just recently noticed that while reviewing [0], but shrugged,
as I didn't know what the history was.

Is this best handled as a separate patch, or folded into [0], which is
going to be altering and renaming that function anyway?

On 03/02/22 09:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 5:25 AM Aleksander Alekseev
>> Since it doesn't seem to be used for anything except these two array
>> declarations I suggest keeping simply "3" here.
>
> I think we do this kind of thing in various places in similar
> situations, and I think it is good style. It makes it easier to catch
> everything if you ever need to update the code.

I've been known (in other projects) to sometimes accomplish the same
thing with, e.g.,

Datum values[3];
bool nulls[sizeof values / sizeof *values];

Doesn't win any beauty contests, but just one place to change the length
if it needs changing. I see we define a lengthof in c.h, so could use:

Datum values[3];
bool nulls[lengthof(values)];

Regards,
-Chap

[0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3436/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2022-03-02 17:07:43 Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats
Previous Message Greg Stark 2022-03-02 16:58:28 Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i