2019-11-06 11:31 に Fujii Masao さんは書きました:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:23 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> >>> - for (step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++)
>> >>> + for (const char *step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++)
>> >
>> > But I still wonder why we should apply such change here.
>>
>> Because it removes one declaration and reduces the scope of one
>> variable?
>>
>> > If there is the reason why this change is necessary here,
>>
>> Nope, such changes are never necessary.
>>
>> > I'm OK with that. But if not, basically I'd like to avoid the change.
>> > Otherwise it may make the back-patch a bit harder
>> > when we change the surrounding code.
>>
>> I think that this is small enough so that it can be managed, if any
>> back
>> patch occurs on the surrounding code, which is anyway pretty unlikely.
>>
>> > Attached is the slightly updated version of the patch. Based on your
>> > patch, I added the descriptions about logging of "g" and "G" steps into
>> > the doc, and did some cosmetic changes. Barrying any objections,
>> > I'm thinking to commit this patch.
>>
>> I'd suggest:
>>
>> "to print one message each ..." -> "to print one message every ..."
>>
>> "to print no progress ..." -> "not to print any progress ..."
>>
>> I would not call "fprintf(stderr" twice in a row if I can call it
>> once.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion!
> I updated the patch in that way and committed it!
>
> This commit doesn't include the change "for (const char ...)"
> and "merge two fprintf into one" ones that we were discussing.
> Because they are trivial but I'm not sure if they are improvements
> or not, yet. If they are, probably it's better to apply such changes
> to all the places having the similar issues. But that seems overkill.
>
>>
>> > While reviewing the patch, I found that current code allows space
>> > character to be specified in -I. That is, checkInitSteps() accepts
>> > space character. Why should we do this?
>>
>> > Probably I understand why runInitSteps() needs to accept space character
>> > (because "v" in the specified string with -I is replaced with a space
>> > character when --no-vacuum option is given).
>>
>> Yes, that is the reason, otherwise the string would have to be
>> shifted.
>>
>> > But I'm not sure why that's also necessary in checkInitSteps(). Instead,
>> > we should treat a space character as invalid in checkInitSteps()?
>>
>> I think that it may break --no-vacuum, and I thought that there may be
>> other option which remove things, eventually. Also, having a NO-OP
>> looks
>> ok to me.
>
> As far as I read the code, checkInitSteps() checks the initialization
> steps that users specified. The initialization steps string that
> "v" was replaced with blank character is not given to checkInitSteps().
> So ISTM that dropping the handling of blank character from
> checkInitSteps() doesn't break --no-vacuum.
>
This is a patch which does not allow space character in -I options .
Regard,
Yu Kimura
