| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kohei Kaigai <kohei(dot)kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Common object property boards |
| Date: | 2011-08-08 15:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1312818787-sup-2773@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of lun ago 08 03:12:20 -0400 2011:
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> So, it seems to me the interface should return a pointer to the entry
> of array being specified, rather than above approach.
>
> E.g, the above macro could be probably rewritten as follows:
> #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype) \
> (get_object_property(objtype)->attnum_name)
I don't understand why don't you just do something like
#define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype, attnum_name_value) \
(get_object_property((objtype), NULL, NULL, (attnum_name_value), NULL, NULL)))
and the caller does
AttrNumber attnum_name;
get_object_property_attnum_name(OBJTYPE_TABLE, &attnum_name);
i.e. the caller must still pass pointers, instead of expecting the
values to be returned.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-08 16:05:05 | Re: [RFC] Common object property boards |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-08 15:52:24 | Re: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs |