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:
> #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype) \
> (get_object_property(objtype)->attnum_name)
I don't understand why don't you just do something like
#define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype, attnum_name_value) \
(get_object_property((objtype), NULL, NULL, (attnum_name_value), NULL,
NULL)))
and the caller does
AttrNumber attnum_name;
get_object_property_attnum_name(OBJTYPE_TABLE, &attnum_name);
i.e. the caller must still pass pointers, instead of expecting the
values to be returned.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
