On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of lun ago 08 03:12:20 -0400 2011: > >> Thanks for your suggestion. >> So, it seems to me the interface should return a pointer to the entry >> of array being specified, rather than above approach. >> >> E.g, the above macro could be probably rewritten as follows: >> #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype) \ >> (get_object_property(objtype)->attnum_name) > > I don't understand why don't you just do something like > > #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype, attnum_name_value) \ > (get_object_property((objtype), NULL, NULL, (attnum_name_value), NULL, > NULL))) > > and the caller does > > AttrNumber attnum_name; > get_object_property_attnum_name(OBJTYPE_TABLE, &attnum_name); > > i.e. the caller must still pass pointers, instead of expecting the > values to be returned.
We could do that, but what the heck is the point? What benefit are we trying to get by not returning a pointer to the structure? I feel like we're making this ludicrously complicated with no real justification of why all of this complexity is adding any value. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
