Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/7/17 14:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 9/5/17 15:32, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I do agree with the idea that we should use the * notation in cases where >>> the reader might otherwise think that a plain function was being invoked, >>> ie I don't like >>> some_function_pointer(

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/5/17 15:32, Tom Lane wrote: >> I do agree with the idea that we should use the * notation in cases where >> the reader might otherwise think that a plain function was being invoked, >> ie I don't like >> some_function_pointer(args); >> Even if the compiler isn't con

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/5/17 15:32, Tom Lane wrote: > At one time there were C compilers that only accepted the former syntax. Correct. Explanation here: http://c-faq.com/ptrs/funccall.html > I do agree with the idea that we should use the * notation in cases where > the reader might otherwise think that a plain f

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-05 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/21/17 01:11, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers >> >> - (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, queryString, >> + next_ProcessUtility_hook(pstmt, queryString, >>

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > Do you mean specifically the hook variables, or any function pointers? > I can see your point in the above case, but for example here > - if ((*tinfo->f_lt) (o.upper, c.upper, flinfo)) > + if (tinfo->f_lt(o.upper, c.upper, flinfo)) > I think there is no los

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/21/17 01:11, Michael Paquier wrote: >> - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers > > - (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, queryString, > + next_ProcessUtility_hook(pstmt, queryString, > context, params, queryEnv, >

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/29/17 03:32, Ryan Murphy wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation:tested, passed > > I've revie

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-08-29 Thread Ryan Murphy
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed I've reviewed the code changes, and it's pretty clear to me t

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Here are a few assorted patches I made while working on the stdbool set, >> cleaning up various pieces of dead code and weird styles. >> >> - Drop excessive dereferencing of fun

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-08-21 Thread Michael Meskes
> And there are many "(0)" "S_ANYTHING" in src/interfaces/ecpg/test/ and > src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/. I might have missed something here, but where/why is S_ANYTHING a problem? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Pos

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-08-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here are a few assorted patches I made while working on the stdbool set, > cleaning up various pieces of dead code and weird styles. > > - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers - (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, q