Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2016-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Jaimin Pan wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > How about this patch. I believe it will never missing someone and be > > detected while compiling. > > Hmm, yeah this looks like something that's worth considering going > forward. I can't think of any reason not to do this. Perhaps

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-23 Thread Jaimin Pan
Hi all, How about this patch. I believe it will never missing someone and be detected while compiling. 2015-07-21 19:38 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com: Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: +1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether which would be

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jaimin Pan wrote: Hi all, How about this patch. I believe it will never missing someone and be detected while compiling. Hmm, yeah this looks like something that's worth considering going forward. I can't think of any reason not to do this. Perhaps we can write getObjectClass using this,

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: +1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether which would be very nice for switch purposes. Oh, wait, I forgot that the patch itself introduces another reference to MAX_OCLASS. I wonder though if we should get rid of that as an enum

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Any opinions on this idea? I don't like it all that much, but it's plenty effective. I don't like it much either. What about adding StaticAsserts that lengthof() the relevant constant arrays is equal to MAX_OCLASS? (Or other similar ways of

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: +1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether which would be very nice for switch purposes. Oh, wait, I forgot that the patch itself introduces another reference to MAX_OCLASS. I wonder though if we should get rid of that as an enum value in favor of

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: What about adding StaticAsserts that lengthof() the relevant constant arrays is equal to MAX_OCLASS? (Or other similar ways of checking that they have the right number of entries.) Well, the array itself is declared like this:

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] object_classes array is broken, again

2015-07-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Any opinions on this idea? I don't like it all that much, but it's plenty effective. I don't like it much either. What about adding StaticAsserts that lengthof() the relevant constant arrays is equal to MAX_OCLASS? (Or