On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 04:42:24PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Hmm, if we're inventing a new API to replace the old one, why not use > that opportunity to be consistent with our general style, which > predominantly seems to be either words_separated_by_underscore() or > UpperCamelCase(). Thoughts?
Not wrong. Using small-case characters separated with underscores would be more consistent with the rest perhaps? We use that for the initialization of custom variables and for all the relkind-related interfaces. > You might know already, but in short, the values in the passed-in > relopt_parse_elts array (relopt_elems) must fit within > relopt_struct_size. Writing an Assert turned out to be tricky given > that alignment must be considered, but I have tried to add one. Pleas > check, it very well might be wrong. ;) Hmm. I didn't expect it to be this confusing with relopt_type_size[]. I'll try to think about something :( + * Parses reloptions provided by the caller in text array format and + * fills and returns a struct containing the parsed option values The sentence structure is weird, perhaps: This routine parses "reloptions" provided by the caller in text-array format. The parsing is done with a table describing the allowed options, defined by "relopt_elems" of length "num_relopt_elems". The returned result is a structure containing all the parsed option values. > Attached updated patch. It would be nice to hear whether this patch > is really what Nikolay intended to eventually do with this code. Okay, let's check if Nikolay likes this idea. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
