On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think
> the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on
> common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that
> do not want common.c too.
>
Okay, thanks (to Heikki as well) for the clarification. It's good to
know they are functionally equivalent. I'll do some snooping in
/scripts to get a better view of the situation.
> > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases.
>
> I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks
> inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would
> give a clue about this.
>
Alright, I'll be spending some quality time with 'annotate' then =)
>
> If you're not actively working on this patch right now, I am going to go
> ahead and commit the other open patches for describe.c. If you do have
> a patch in progress, I'm willing to hold off to avoid any merge
> conflicts. Let me know.
>
I didn't get much beyond sketching out my struct. Now that I have
answers to the questions I raised above, I can push forward with the
patch, but I wouldn't expect to have anything to submit for another
couple of days at least.
Short answer: I have zero objections to you committing those patches.
Thanks for your time,
BJ
