| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString |
| Date: | 2013-09-28 11:44:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20130928114422.GA2670970@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-28 14:11:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
> >The macro for test 4 was as follows:
> >#define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
> >(s), sizeof(s)-1)
>
> If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we should just do:
>
> #define appendStringInfoString(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf, (s),
> strlen(s))
Doesn't that have a bit too much of an multiple evaluation danger? Maybe
make it a static inline in the header instead for the platforms that
support it?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-09-28 12:42:21 | Re: plpgsql.print_strict_params |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2013-09-28 11:40:47 | Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString |