On 30/08/2018 22:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think we should have as rules:
>
> 1) Members should be defined in the same order as in the struct, that's
>the requirement C++ standard is going to impose. Think it's also
>reasonable stylistically.
> 2) It's OK to omit setting members if zero
Mark Dilger writes:
> I tried doing this perhaps a year ago, and there are a few files with arrays
> of structs whose representations get much larger when you change the format
> in this way. For instance, in guc.c:
> ...
> What should the general rule be for initializing arrays of structs such a
Hi,
On 2018-08-30 13:54:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-30, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> > static struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] =
> > {
> > {
> > {"enable_seqscan", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
> > gettext_noop("Enables the planner's use of sequential
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that assuming that they're physically zeroes is OK from a
> portability standpoint, because we'd have a whole lot of other issues
> if they weren't. But I have a different point to make, which is that
> it's fairly standard practice for u
On 2018-Aug-30, Mark Dilger wrote:
> static struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] =
> {
> {
> {"enable_seqscan", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
> gettext_noop("Enables the planner's use of sequential-scan
> plans."),
> NULL
> },
> &enable_s
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:51 PM, David Steele wrote:
>
> On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style
>>> designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregiou
Hi,
On 2018-08-29 18:51:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that assuming that they're physically zeroes is OK from a
> portability standpoint, because we'd have a whole lot of other issues
> if they weren't. But I have a different point to make, which is that
> it's fairly standard practice for
Hi,
On 2018-08-29 20:35:57 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 08/29/18 18:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > As against that, of course, explicitly zeroing fields that you know very
> > well are already zero eats some cycles. I've occasionally wondered if
>
> I haven't checked what a smart C99 compiler ac
On 08/29/18 18:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> As against that, of course, explicitly zeroing fields that you know very
> well are already zero eats some cycles. I've occasionally wondered if
I haven't checked what a smart C99 compiler actually emits for a
designated initializer giving a field a compile-t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-08-29 15:51:07 -0500, David Steele wrote:
>> One thing: I'm not sure that excluding the InvalidOid assignment in the
>> TopTransactionStateData initializer is a good idea. That is, it's not clear
>> that InvalidOid is 0.
>> NULL, false, and 0 seem like no-brainers,
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:51 AM David Steele wrote:
> On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style
> >> designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregious
Hi,
On 2018-08-29 15:51:07 -0500, David Steele wrote:
> One thing: I'm not sure that excluding the InvalidOid assignment in the
> TopTransactionStateData initializer is a good idea. That is, it's not clear
> that InvalidOid is 0.
>
> NULL, false, and 0 seem like no-brainers, but maybe it would b
On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style
designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregious
cases that were hard to read and write, and error prone because of
//www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From 8af20d62778b44fc5bfe91f2f8fe7991ffc09bb9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:36:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Use C99 designated initializers for some structs
Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style
designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregious
cases that were hard to read and write, and error prone because of many
similar adjacent types.
(The PL/Python changes currently don't compile with Python 3
15 matches
Mail list logo
