From: | "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere? |
Date: | 2024-04-24 09:32:46 |
Message-ID: | 6457915f-f880-452d-a4ae-21a5bfbccbd3@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.04.2024 12:19, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2024, at 11:13, Anton A. Melnikov <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>
>> On 24.04.2024 12:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 19.04.24 05:50, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> May be better use this macro everywhere in C code?
>>> I don't know. I don't find XLOG_CONTROL_FILE to be a very intuitive proxy for "pg_control".
>
> Maybe, but inconsistent usage is also unintuitive.
>
>> Then maybe replace XLOG_CONTROL_FILE with PG_CONTROL_FILE?
>>
>> The PG_CONTROL_FILE_SIZE macro is already in the code.
>> With the best regards,
>
> XLOG_CONTROL_FILE is close to two decades old so there might be extensions
> using it (though the risk might be slim), perhaps using offering it as as well
> as backwards-compatability is warranted should we introduce a new name?
>
To ensure backward compatibility we can save the old macro like this:
#define XLOG_CONTROL_FILE "global/pg_control"
#define PG_CONTROL_FILE XLOG_CONTROL_FILE
With the best wishes,
--
Anton A. Melnikov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-04-24 09:46:40 | Re: Q: Escapes in jsonpath Idents |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-04-24 09:19:59 | Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere? |