> OK, here's another approach. output_statement()'s interface > is kept as the original, and not this function decides which
I still think this could be solved more easily. > value it uses. I also introduced > static char *ecpg_statement_type_name[] > for the textual names of the ECPGst_* symbols to keep the > preprocessed code readable, and minimize the impact on the > regression tests. So output_statement() always emits > ECPGst_* symbols in the preprocessed code instead of > ECPGst_normal/prepnormal and numeric value for the > other two cases. This way only 7 regression tests' source > has changed instead of 45... There are less > 1 -> ECPGst_execute and > 2 -> ECPGst_exec_immediate > changes than > ECPGst_normal -> 0 > changes would have been if I chose emitting the numeric value. > > Is it acceptable? Yes sure. I changed some small parts of your patch (see above) and will commit in a few minutes. Just running regression tests. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org VfL Borussia! Forca Barca! Go SF 49ers! Use: Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
