Re: Array initialisation notation in syscache.c

From: Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Array initialisation notation in syscache.c
Date: 2022-12-21 19:39:41
Message-ID: CAN-LCVPgv9n2WGVhmo4zfkvwfWrFoC0arA04qPzZtG6MTjTaVg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi!

Wanted to ask this since I encountered a need for a cache with 5 keys -
why is the syscache index still limited to 4 keys?

Thanks!

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 7:36 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On 21.12.22 04:16, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:33 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> KEY(Anum_pg_attribute_attrelid,
> >> Anum_pg_attribute_attnum),
> >
> > I independently rediscovered that our VA_ARGS_NARGS() macro in c.h
> > always returns 1 on MSVC via trial-by-CI. Derp. Here is the same
> > patch, no change from v2, but this time accompanied by Victor Spirin's
> > fix, which I found via one of the tab-completion-is-busted-on-Windows
> > discussions. I can't supply a useful commit message, because I
> > haven't understood why it works, but it does indeed seem to work and
> > this should make cfbot green.
>
> This looks like a good improvement to me.
>
> (I have also thought about having this generated from the catalog
> definition files somehow, but one step at a time ...)
>
>
>
>

--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.ru/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-12-21 19:41:20 Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol
Previous Message Ranier Vilela 2022-12-21 17:51:38 Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II)