| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset |
| Date: | 2022-03-03 22:00:23 |
| Message-ID: | 62213A77.3040508@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/03/22 16:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> The point is to make it clear that the macro isn't intended to affect
> code outside the function. Since C lacks block-scoped macros,
> there's no other way to do that.
>
> I concede that a lot of our code is pretty sloppy about this, but
> that doesn't make it a good practice.
Would the
Datum values[3];
bool nulls[ lengthof(values) ];
pattern be more notationally tidy? No macro to define or undefine,
we already define lengthof() in c.h, and it seems pretty much made
for the purpose, if the objective is to have just one 3 to change
if it someday becomes not-3.
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-03 22:17:56 | Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-03 21:45:14 | Re: casting operand to proper type in BlockIdGetBlockNumber |