On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think > the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on > common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that > do not want common.c too. >
Okay, thanks (to Heikki as well) for the clarification. It's good to know they are functionally equivalent. I'll do some snooping in /scripts to get a better view of the situation. > > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all > cases. > > I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks > inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would > give a clue about this. > Alright, I'll be spending some quality time with 'annotate' then =) > > If you're not actively working on this patch right now, I am going to go > ahead and commit the other open patches for describe.c. If you do have > a patch in progress, I'm willing to hold off to avoid any merge > conflicts. Let me know. > I didn't get much beyond sketching out my struct. Now that I have answers to the questions I raised above, I can push forward with the patch, but I wouldn't expect to have anything to submit for another couple of days at least. Short answer: I have zero objections to you committing those patches. Thanks for your time, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
