| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset | 
| Date: | 2022-03-02 17:04:59 | 
| Message-ID: | 621FA3BB.4090509@anastigmatix.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 03/02/22 02:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> system function marked as proretset while it builds and returns only
> one record.  And this is a popular one: pg_stop_backup(), labelled
> v2.
I had just recently noticed that while reviewing [0], but shrugged,
as I didn't know what the history was.
Is this best handled as a separate patch, or folded into [0], which is
going to be altering and renaming that function anyway?
On 03/02/22 09:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 5:25 AM Aleksander Alekseev
>> Since it doesn't seem to be used for anything except these two array
>> declarations I suggest keeping simply "3" here.
>
> I think we do this kind of thing in various places in similar
> situations, and I think it is good style. It makes it easier to catch
> everything if you ever need to update the code.
I've been known (in other projects) to sometimes accomplish the same
thing with, e.g.,
Datum  values[3];
bool    nulls[sizeof values / sizeof *values];
Doesn't win any beauty contests, but just one place to change the length
if it needs changing. I see we define a lengthof in c.h, so could use:
Datum  values[3];
bool    nulls[lengthof(values)];
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-03-02 17:07:43 | Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats | 
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2022-03-02 16:58:28 | Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i |