| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
| Date: | 2019-11-12 05:17:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20191112051742.GL1549@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 04:13:03PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Hmm, but then what is your suggestion for existing code that uses {0}.
> If we reject this patch and leave the current code as it is, there is
> always a risk of some people using {0} and others using memset which
> will lead to further deviation in the code. Now, maybe if we change
> the existing code to always use memset where we use {0}, then we can
> kind of enforce such a rule for future patch authors.
Well, we could have a shot at reducing the footprint of {0} then where
we can. I am seeing less than a dozen in contrib/, and a bit more
than thirty in src/backend/. Or we could just do as we do with such
business: let's update them when we see that's adapted and when
modifying the surrounding area.
At least I see one conclusion coming out of this thread: the patch is
in the direction of getting rejected. My recommendation would be to
do that, and focus on other patches which could get merged: we have a
total of 220 entries in this CF.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-12 05:41:35 | Re: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies. |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-11-12 05:17:06 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |