Fabien COELHO wrote:

> >If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
> >bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
> >there ...
> Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.

I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces that make sense.
Speaking of which, I don't think the arrangement in your patch really
does.  I know I suggested it, but now that I look again, it turns out I
chose badly and you implemented a bad idea, so can we go back and fix
it, please?

What I now think should really happen is that the current sql_scripts
array, currently under an anonymous struct, should be a typedef, say
ParsedScript, and get a new member for the weight; process_file and
process_builtin return a ParsedScript.  The weight and Command ** should
not be part of script_t at all.  In fact, with ParsedScript I don't
think we need to give a name to the anon struct used for builtin
scripts.  Rename the current sql_scripts.name to "desc", to mirror what
is actually put in there from the builtin array struct.  Make addScript
receive a ParsedScript and weight, fill in the weight into the struct,
and put it to the array after sanity-checking.  (I'm OK with keeping
"name" instead of renaming to "desc", if that change becomes too

No need for N_BUILTIN; we can use lengthof(builtin_script) instead.

Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to