| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reorganize GUC structs |
| Date: | 2025-10-29 09:07:02 |
| Message-ID: | b04f60e6-7e0b-4c22-a0e6-d44a32b02fb2@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.10.25 14:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> @@ -261,15 +261,15 @@ static bool
>> assignable_custom_variable_name(const char *name, bool skip_errors,
>> int elevel);
>> static void do_serialize(char **destptr, Size *maxbytes,
>> const char *fmt,...) pg_attribute_printf(3, 4);
>> -static bool call_bool_check_hook(const struct config_bool *conf, bool
>> *newval,
>> +static bool call_bool_check_hook(const struct config_generic *conf,
>> bool *newval,
>> void **extra, GucSource source, int
>> elevel);
>> -static bool call_int_check_hook(const struct config_int *conf, int
>> *newval,
>> +static bool call_int_check_hook(const struct config_generic *conf,
>> int *newval,
>> void **extra, GucSource source, int
>> elevel);
>> -static bool call_real_check_hook(const struct config_real *conf,
>> double *newval,
>> +static bool call_real_check_hook(const struct config_generic *conf,
>> double *newval,
>> void **extra, GucSource source, int
>> elevel);
>> -static bool call_string_check_hook(const struct config_string *conf,
>> char **newval,
>> +static bool call_string_check_hook(const struct config_generic *conf,
>> char **newval,
>> void **extra, GucSource source,
>> int elevel);
>> -static bool call_enum_check_hook(const struct config_enum *conf, int
>> *newval,
>> +static bool call_enum_check_hook(const struct config_generic *conf,
>> int *newval,
>> void **extra, GucSource source, int
>> elevel);
>
> The new signatures for these function are less specific than before,
> making them a little worse IMO. Overall +1 on the patches, despite that
> little drawback.
Thanks, pushed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-10-29 09:08:26 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-10-29 08:55:56 | Re: Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() |