From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls |
Date: | 2013-01-02 15:27:15 |
Message-ID: | CACMqXCKM-ooPR=qXpvauvHi1ZjdijijE0Jjtum0SAZAow7Ri-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> 2012-12-11 16:09 keltezéssel, Simon Riggs írta:
>
>> On 11 December 2012 12:18, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Such mechanism already exist - you just need to set
>>>>> your PGresult pointer to NULL after each PQclear().
>>>>
>>>> So why doesn't PQclear() do that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because then PQclear() would need a ** not a *. Do you want its
>>> interface changed for 9.3 and break compatibility with previous versions?
>>
>> No, but we should introduce a new public API call that is safer,
>> otherwise we get people continually re-inventing new private APIs that
>> Do the Right Thing, as the two other respondents have shown.
>>
>
> How about these macros?
* Use do { } while (0) around the macros to get proper statement behaviour.
* The if() is not needed, both PQclear and PQfinish do it internally.
* Docs
Should the names show somehow that they are macros?
Or is it enough that it's mentioned in documentation?
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-01-02 15:35:31 | Re: ALTER .. OWNER TO error mislabels schema as other object type |
Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-01-02 15:11:49 | Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls |