Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays
Date
Msg-id 3378.1571684676@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Joe Nelson (joe@begriffs.com) wrote:
>> If it's being put behind a macro then *stylistically* it shouldn't
>> matter whether {} or {0} is chosen, right? In which case {0} would
>> be a better choice because it's supported everywhere.

> The problem with {0} in the first place is that it doesn't actually work
> in all cases...  Simple cases, yes, but not more complex ones.  It's
> unfortunate that there isn't a general solution here that works across
> platforms (even if it involved macros..), but that seems to be the case.

There is a general solution that works across platforms; it's called
memset() and it's what we're using today.  I'm beginning to think that
we should just reject this patch.  It's certainly not enough of an
improvement to justify the amount of discussion that's gone into it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: intermittent test failure on Windows
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays