On 2019-01-23 12:32:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> It does. How does pgindent behave with it? > > > It craps out: > > Error@3649: Unbalanced parens > > Warning@3657: Extra ) > > > But that can be worked around with something like > > > te = ArchiveEntry(fout, tdinfo->dobj.catId, tdinfo->dobj.dumpId, > > ARCHIVE_ARGS(.tag = tbinfo->dobj.name, > > .namespace = > > tbinfo->dobj.namespace->dobj.name, > > .owner = tbinfo->rolname, > > .desc = "TABLE DATA", > > .section = SECTION_DATA, > > .copyStmt = copyStmt, > > .deps = &(tbinfo->dobj.dumpId), > > .nDeps = 1, > > .dumpFn = dumpFn, > > .dumpArg = tdinfo, > > )); > > which looks mildly simpler too. > > That looks fairly reasonable from here, but I'd suggest > ARCHIVE_OPTS rather than ARCHIVE_ARGS.
WFM. Seems quite possible that we'd grow a few more of these over time, so establishing some common naming seems good. Btw, do you have an opionion on keeping catId / dumpId outside/inside the argument struct? > Can we omit the initial dots if we use a wrapper macro? Would it be > a good idea to do so (I'm not really sure)? Not easily, if at all, I think. We'd have to do a fair bit of weird macro magic (and then still end up with limitations) to "process" each argument individually. And even if it were easy, I don't think it's particularly advantageous. Greetings, Andres Freund
