On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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
>> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ago 08 12:05:05 -0400 2011:
>> >> We could do that, but what
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas 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 ... whi
Robert Haas 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 minor version
update
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
> 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 g
2011/8/8 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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, ra
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of lun ago 08 12:18:47 -0400 2011:
> 2011/8/8 Robert Haas :
> > 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 wit
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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
>> like we're making this
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 11:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
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.
>>
>>
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:
>
2011/8/7 Tom Lane :
> Kohei KaiGai 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 get_objec
Kohei KaiGai 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 get_object_property_attnum_name(objty
>>> 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
2011/8/2 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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
>>> wrote:
>>> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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
>> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
>> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane :
>> >
>
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
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
> >> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane :
> >
> >> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
>> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane :
>
>> > It would likely be better to not expose the struct type, just individual
>> > lookup functions.
>> >
>> If so, individual functions to expo
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of dom jul 31 02:21:55 -0400 2011:
> 2011/7/29 Tom Lane :
> > 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 should be p
2011/7/29 Tom Lane :
> Kohei Kaigai 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
> getObjectDesc
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane 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 type name (e.g "ta
Kohei Kaigai 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? The latter's output i
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 whic
22 matches
Mail list logo
