2011/8/7 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
I'm under implementation of this code according to the suggestion.
However, I'm not sure whether it is really portable way (at least, GCC
accepts),
and whether the interface is simpler than as Robert suggested at
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:
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
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:05:05 -0400 2011:
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
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:05:05 -0400 2011:
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
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of lun ago 08 12:18:47 -0400 2011:
2011/8/8 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
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
2011/8/8 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
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
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:33:45 -0400 2011:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:05:05 -0400 2011:
We could do that, but what the heck is the point? What benefit are
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
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?
Not having an ABI break if we find it necessary to add members to the
struct ... which I grant is unlikely to happen in a
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
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?
Not having an ABI break if we find it necessary to
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:33:45 -0400 2011:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:05:05
So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common
cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more.
I could go for that.
OK, I'll try to implement according to the idea.
I'm under implementation of this code according to the suggestion.
However, I'm not sure whether it
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
I'm under implementation of this code according to the suggestion.
However, I'm not sure whether it is really portable way (at least, GCC
accepts),
and whether the interface is simpler than as Robert suggested at first.
#define
2011/8/2 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
2011/7/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
lookup functions.
If so, individual functions to expose a certain property of the supplied
object type
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
2011/7/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
lookup functions.
If
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
2011/7/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
It would likely be
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 01 16:12:56 -0400 2011:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55
2011/7/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei Kaigai kohei.kai...@emea.nec.com writes:
In addition to this suggestion, I think the big static array also contains
the following items:
- Text form of the object type (e.g, table, function, ...)
What will you do with that that wouldn't be better
Robert Haas wrote:
| I think that get_object_namespace() needs to be rethought. If you
| take a look at AlterObjectNamespace() and its callers, you'll notice
| that we already have, encoded in those call sites, the knowledge of
| which object types can be looked up in which system caches, and
Kohei Kaigai kohei.kai...@emea.nec.com writes:
In addition to this suggestion, I think the big static array also contains
the following items:
- Text form of the object type (e.g, table, function, ...)
What will you do with that that wouldn't be better done by calling
getObjectDescription?
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
lookup functions.
I'm not sure about that... I think that's just going to introduce a
lot of excess notation.
And, a translation from ObjectType to
22 matches
Mail list logo
