Re: catalog files simplification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: catalog files simplification
Date
Msg-id 24267.1560346479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: catalog files simplification  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: catalog files simplification
Re: catalog files simplification
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 7:52 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> The current catalog files all do this:
>> 
>> CATALOG(pg_aggregate,2600,AggregateRelationId)
>> {
>> ...
>> } FormData_pg_aggregate;
>> 
>> typedef FormData_pg_aggregate *Form_pg_aggregate;
>> 
>> The bottom part of this seems redundant.  With the attached patch, we
>> can generate that automatically, so this becomes just
>> 
>> CATALOG(pg_aggregate,2600,AggregateRelationId)
>> {
>> ...
>> };

> Maybe the macro definition could be split across several lines instead
> of having one really long line?

I think that would complicate Catalog.pm; not clear if it's worth it.

> Are some compilers going to be sad about typedef struct x x; preceding
> any declaration or definition of struct x?

Nope, we have lots of instances of that already, cf "opaque struct"
declarations in various headers.

A bigger objection might be that this would leave us with no obvious-
to-the-untrained-eye declaration point for either the struct name or
the two typedef names.  That might make tools like ctags sad.  Perhaps
it's not really any worse than today, but it bears investigation.

We should also check whether pgindent has any issue with this layout.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: catalog files simplification
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Are there still non-ELF BSD systems?