| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
| Date: | 2016-11-27 21:21:49 |
| Message-ID: | a4b35a6e-7b8a-1550-1543-e5e77183ab5f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/11/16 21:47, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> +typedef struct SlabBlockData *SlabBlock; /* forward reference */
>>> +typedef struct SlabChunkData *SlabChunk;
>>>
>>> Can we please not continue hiding pointers behind typedefs? It's a bad
>>> pattern, and that it's fairly widely used isn't a good excuse to
>>> introduce further usages of it.
>>>
>>
>> Why is it a bad pattern?
>
> It hides what is passed by reference, and what by value, and it makes it
> a guessing game whether you need -> or . since you don't know whether
> it's a pointer or the actual object. All to save a * in parameter and
> variable declaration?...
>
FWIW I don't like that pattern either although it's used in many parts
of our code-base.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2016-11-27 21:45:08 | Re: [PATCH] ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with GRANT/REVOKE ON SCHEMAS |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-11-27 21:17:54 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |