Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile
Date: 2019-02-18 20:20:55
Message-ID: 8907.1550521255@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 18/02/2019 16:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Umm ... wouldn't this amount to papering over actual bugs?

> I'd argue that it's not making it easier to do but rather easier to spot
> (vs normal type casting) which is IMO a good thing from patch review
> perspective.

Yeah, fair point. As Peter noted about unconstify, these could be
viewed as TODO markers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-02-18 20:25:11 Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2019-02-18 20:18:42 Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile