From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs |
Date: | 2011-12-05 20:06:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa9x85POBboRmfQcMCam9VsYOxDBxGgMECpVVpivovY5g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> To clarify, I believe the rule is that the first variable-length field
>> can be accessed as a struct field. Are there any exceptions to this?
>
> If it is known not null, yes, but I wonder just how many places actually
> depend on that. It might be better to remove all varlena fields from C
> visibility and require use of the accessor functions. We should at
> least look into what that would cost us.
My impression is that all the varlena fields also allow nulls. So I
think there's no point in trying to keep the first one C-accessible.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-12-05 20:11:05 | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-05 19:47:30 | Re: hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs |