| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Peter Geoghegan" <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Thomas Munro" <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: const correctness |
| Date: | 2011-11-10 21:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4EBBF3A40200002500042D27@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> No, version 2 of the patch used the strchr() technique and has
>> *zero* new functions and *zero* new macros.
>
> Right. I was referring to the non-strchr() approach in the
> initial patch.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.
So, I don't think I've heard any argument against version 2 of this
patch. Does anyone oppose this version? Is any committer willing
to commit it? I'm not sure there's much point putting it into the
CF application, since in spot-checks of object files I thought were
most likely to be affected, I found that identical object code was
generated. It seems to be strictly a matter of whether the code is
more or less readily understood with the patch applied.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-10 21:59:29 | Re: Parsing output of EXPLAIN command in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-10 21:53:53 | Re: Disable OpenSSL compression |