Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring
Date
Msg-id 13281.1547738619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-16, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> ArchiveEntry((ArchiveArgs){.tablespace = 3,
>> .dumpFn = somefunc,
>> ...});

> Is there real savings to be had by doing this?  What would be the
> arguments to each function?  Off-hand, I'm not liking this idea too
> much.

I'm not either.  What this looks like it will mainly do is create
a back-patching barrier, with little if any readability improvement.

I don't buy the argument that this would move the goalposts in terms
of how much work it is to add a new argument.  You'd still end up
touching every call site.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Acceptable/Best formatting of callbacks (for pluggable storage)
Next
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs