Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > On 04/20/2011 04:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we > >> never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity. > > > I think the best cleanup idea is Aidan's, namely is we have declared > > "typdef struct foo { ... } foo;" we should use "foo" in the code > > instead of "struct foo". Then the typedef will be referenced, and the > > code will be cleaner, and we won't run into the pgindent "struct" bug > > either, so it's a win/win/win. > > We want to do that in any case. I think that Bruce was suggesting going > further and actively removing unreferenced struct tags from the > declaration sites. I'm less enthused about that. It would save nothing > except some probably-unmeasurable amount of compile time, and it'd > result in a lot of diffs that might come back to bite future > back-patching efforts.
No, I wasn't thinking that far; just finding the cases where we don't reference a typedef and instead use 'struct structname'. I think Andrew has supplied that list, almost. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers