Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikolay Shaplov
Subject Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type
Date
Msg-id 15264441.SM9BIHTig9@x200m
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type  (Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>)
List pgsql-hackers
В письме от 12 сентября 2018 21:40:49 пользователь Nikolay Shaplov написал:
> > As you mentioned in previous mail, you prefer to keep enum and
> > relopt_enum_element_definition array in the same .h file. I'm not sure,
> > but I think it is done to keep everything related to enum in one place
> > to avoid inconsistency in case of changes in some part (e.g. change of
> > enum without change of array). On the other hand, array content created
> > without array creation itself in .h file. Can we move actual array
> > creation into same .h file? What is the point to separate array content
> > definition and array definition?
>
> Hm... This would be good. We really can do it? ;-) I am not C-expert, some
> aspects of C-development is still mysterious for me. So if it is really ok
> to create array in .h file, I would be happy to move it there  (This patch
> does not include this change, I still want to be sure we can do it)
I've discussed this issue with a colleague, who IS C-expert, and his advice
was not to include this static const into .h file. Because copy of this const
would be created in all objective files where this .h were included. And it is
not the best way...

--
Do code for fun.
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: syntax error: VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE (PostgreSQL 11 regression)
Next
From: Hubert Zhang
Date:
Subject: Is there way to detect uncommitted 'new table' in pg_class?