| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Peter Geoghegan" <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Thomas Munro" <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: const correctness |
| Date: | 2011-11-10 21:39:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4EBBF0180200002500042D1C@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I realize the patch only added 1-2 new const functions
No, version 2 of the patch used the strchr() technique and has
*zero* new functions and *zero* new macros.
> but this is only a small area of the code being patched --- a full
> solution would have many more complex duplicates, and awkward
> changes as we add features.
I'm not convinced of that, and I don't think it really has a bearing
on doing where it can be done with no new functions and no changes
to the code other than adding "const" to existing lines of code.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-10 21:40:32 | Re: const correctness |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-10 21:29:29 | Re: Parsing output of EXPLAIN command in PostgreSQL |