From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: embedded list v3 |
Date: | 2012-09-30 16:57:32 |
Message-ID: | 27446.1349024252@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Patch 0001 contains a assert_compatible_types(a, b) and a
> assert_compatible_types_bool(a, b) macro which I found very useful to make it
> harder to misuse the api. I think its generally useful and possibly should be
> used in more places.
This seems like basically a good idea, but the macro names are very
unfortunately chosen: they don't comport with our other names for
assertion macros, and they imply that the test is symmetric which it
isn't. It's also unclear what the point of the _bool version is
(namely, to be used in expression contexts in macros).
I suggest instead
AssertVariableIsOfType(varname, typename)
AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro(varname, typename)
Or possibly we should leave off the "Assert" prefix, since this will be
a compile-time-constant check and thus not really all that much like
the existing run-time Assert mechanism. Or write "Check" instead of
"Assert", or some other verb.
Anybody got another color for this bikeshed?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | johnkn63 | 2012-09-30 17:56:10 | Extending range of to_tsvector et al |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-30 16:07:02 | Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal |