| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: B-Tree emulation for GIN |
| Date: | 2009-02-06 20:41:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1233952886.14070.49.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 20:22 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> > The description of extractQuery's extra_data parameter seems confusing
> > too. AFAICS it is incorrect, or at least misleading, to describe it as
> > void ** extra_data[]; it is really void ***extra_data, because there is
> > only one object there not an array.
>
> It's really array, see fillScanKey() in ginscan.c, line 61 of patched file.
> extractQuery could provide data for each returned key.
>
If I understand correctly, the extra_data parameter to extractQuery()
should mean "a pointer to an array of void*". "void **extra_data[]"
might be misinterpreted as "an array of void**".
Would "void *(*extra_data)[]" be more descriptive? I'm not an expert on
style questions like this, but it seems to match the parameter lists for
comparePartial() and consistent().
"void ***extra_data" seems reasonable, too.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-06 21:16:10 | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-06 19:24:14 | Re: libpq WSACleanup is not needed |