> Am 15.02.2018 um 20:42 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 02/15/2018 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> It seems like some serious overhead to force a function call >>> for each and every access to a struct field, especially if >> >> I don't see this in the proposal below. _sizeof() and / or _copy would IMHO >> only be needed in rare cases and probably >> non critical pathes. They could be handy though. >> I don't see any kind of _get / _set for each field below. > > +1, those sorts of accessors are only interesting when doing > something more than changing a member value. E.g. when > a major part of the entire structure is rearranged triggered by > specific member value changes.
+1 for palloc/copy/sizeof on major structs. -1 for field accessors. -Stefan
