Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Agreed, it seems better. The attached patch adds that, a macro you
> originally requested and another one, and it also fixes an off-by-one
> bug I discovered while testing all of this. I also attach the testing
> patch I play with to check that this all works nicely.
| *** src/include/access/reloptions.h 6 Jan 2009 14:47:37 -0000 1.8
| --- src/include/access/reloptions.h 7 Jan 2009 13:31:25 -0000
| ***************
| *** 90,100 ****
| --- 90,103 ----
| double max;
| } relopt_real;
|
| + typedef void (*validate_string_relopt) (char *);
| +
| typedef struct relopt_string
| {
| relopt_gen gen;
| int default_len;
| bool default_isnull;
| + validate_string_relopt validate_cb;
| char default_val[1]; /* variable length */
| } relopt_string;
Could you deliver "bool validate" to the validate_string_relopt callback?
In this specification, invoked callback cannot know whether it should
really raise an error for invalid reloption, or not.
I prefer:
typedef void (*validate_string_relopt) (char *value, bool validate);
> Oh, the patch also removes a bunch of "continue" statements that, as far
> as I can tell, no longer work after the macros were wrapped in
> do { ... } while (0) :-( I don't see any nice way to put the facility
> back.
>
> Thanks for all the input.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
