On 23 June 2011 00:37, Greg Stark wrote:
> Hm. I have to say the single most confusing thing about the Postgres
> source that took me a *long* time to get over was remembering that
> some of the typedefs were already pointers and some weren't. It seems
> silly now but when I was trying to understa
Greg Stark writes:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we were thinking of moving in that direction, I would argue that
>> we should get rid of typedef'd pointers altogether, ie, change
>> "Relation" to be a typedef for the struct and write "Relation *rel"
>> not "Relation re
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we were thinking of moving in that direction, I would argue that
> we should get rid of typedef'd pointers altogether, ie, change
> "Relation" to be a typedef for the struct and write "Relation *rel"
> not "Relation rel".
Hm. I have to say the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Declarations like "const structtype *param" are fine, because those
>>> create a real, enforced contract on what the function can do to data
>>> that is visible to i
Merlin Moncure writes:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Declarations like "const structtype *param" are fine, because those
>> create a real, enforced contract on what the function can do to data
>> that is visible to its caller. But I don't see any value at all in
>> const-
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Declarations like "const structtype *param" are fine, because those
> create a real, enforced contract on what the function can do to data
> that is visible to its caller. But I don't see any value at all in
> const-ifying the parameter itself.
>
On 22.06.2011 02:58, Dan Ports wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:51:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I find this to be poor style, and would like to see if there's any
support for getting rid of the "const" keywords.
I'm in favor of removing them too.
Ok, I've removed all the useless const qualif
On 22.06.2011 01:51, Tom Lane wrote:
I notice that the SSI code is rather heavily invested in function
declarations like this:
extern bool PageIsPredicateLocked(const Relation relation, const BlockNumber
blkno);
I find this to be poor style, and would like to see if there's any
support for get
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:51:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I find this to be poor style, and would like to see if there's any
> support for getting rid of the "const" keywords.
I'm in favor of removing them too.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAILhttp://drkp.net/
--
On 21 June 2011 23:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice that the SSI code is rather heavily invested in function
> declarations like this:
>
> extern bool PageIsPredicateLocked(const Relation relation, const BlockNumber
> blkno);
>
> I find this to be poor style, and would like to see if there's any
>
I notice that the SSI code is rather heavily invested in function
declarations like this:
extern bool PageIsPredicateLocked(const Relation relation, const BlockNumber
blkno);
I find this to be poor style, and would like to see if there's any
support for getting rid of the "const" keywords. My o
11 matches
Mail list logo
