| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Date: | 2024-10-08 20:56:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLmu0w8K=Q2OvYAoiaHDL_UfrJFBz6ktCrvfy297SL2Bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 8:13 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For the top-level TableScanDescData, I suggest we use a union with the
> members of each scan type in it in anonymous structs (see 0001).
Just by the way, you can't use anonymous structs or unions in C99
(that was added to C11), but most compilers accept them silently
unless you use eg -std=c99. Some buildfarm animal or other would
bleat about that (ask me how I know), but out CI doesn't pick it up
:-( Maybe we should fix that. That's why you see a lot of code
around that accesses unions through a member with a name like "u",
because the author was shaking her fist at the god of standards and
steadfastly refusing to think of a name. It's a shame in cases where
you want to retrofit a union into existing code without having to
adjust the code that accesses one of the members...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-10-08 20:56:58 | Re: pgindent fails with perl 5.40 |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-10-08 20:39:57 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |