Re: [HACKERS] Some cleanups/enhancements

I recommend running the regression test before/after the changes, to
make sure something didn't get broken.

>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Jeroen van Vianen wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running PostgreSQL 6.3 on Linux 2.1.85 with gcc 2.8.0 and libc5. So
> > far no problems, however I noted some cleanups / enhancements which I
> > would like to do. Before I send you a bunch of patches I thought I'll
> > tell you what I'm planning to do. Please comment on my list and indicate
> > whether I should go ahead.
> >
> > - Fix all Makefiles so 'make dep' and 'make depend' work
>
> Can someone explain what, exactly, 'make depend' accomplishes? We
> don't use it right now, so I'm wondering why (if?) we need it now?
>
> > - Some other Makefile cleanups
> > - gcc 2.8.0 issues some additional warnings which are very easy to fix:
> > - register i --> register int i
> > - Ambiguous else --> add braces:
> > if (cond1)
> > if (cond2)
> > ...
> > else
> > ...
> > - etc.
>
> Sounds great...
>
> > - Add a template for linux-elf-586 with (optimized) code for a Pentium
> > (gcc 2.8.0 not only supports -m486 but also -mpentium and -mpentiumpro).
> > Why not use template names similar to the output of config.guess (maybe
> > with some symbolic links)?
>
> Erk...I think 'templates' are getting a little out of hand here,
> no?
>
> > - Why is there some code to change the case of the procedural language
> > to lower case except for 'C' (in fact it's there twice)? Why not use
> > strcasecmp and remove these pices of code?
>
> I question this in *alot* of places...like why pg_dlopen is
> defined as just 'dlopen()' in some ports *shrug* Why not just call it
> directly? *raised eyebrow*
>
> > These are all the things that I found after browsing through the code
> > one night (primarily in backend/access, backend/catalog and
> > backend/executor).
> >
> > Let me know what you think of the above list and I will proceed. If you
> > have any hints on how I might proceed (especially with same_tuple)
> > please don't hesitate. Expect the changes to be available somewhere
> > after the weekend.
>
> The only thing I ask is that you submit these in such a way that
> they can be easily reviewed before committing them...we are in a beta mode
> right now, and altho some of this makes for nice cleanups, some of this
> should most likely be gingerly added...
>
> If at all possible, a seperate patch for each point above would be
> really good, with an explanation of each. If it weren't for beta-status,
> I wouldn't care, since we could debug after, but with only 2/2.5 weeks
> till release, we are getting tight for debugging...:(
>
>
>
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us