On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Jeroen van Vianen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running PostgreSQL 6.3 on Linux 2.1.85 with gcc 2.8.0 and libc5. So
> far no problems, however I noted some cleanups / enhancements which I
> would like to do. Before I send you a bunch of patches I thought I'll
> tell you what I'm planning to do. Please comment on my list and indicate
> whether I should go ahead.
>
> - Fix all Makefiles so 'make dep' and 'make depend' work
Can someone explain what, exactly, 'make depend' accomplishes? We
don't use it right now, so I'm wondering why (if?) we need it now?
> - Some other Makefile cleanups
> - gcc 2.8.0 issues some additional warnings which are very easy to fix:
> - register i --> register int i
> - Ambiguous else --> add braces:
> if (cond1)
> if (cond2)
> ...
> else
> ...
> - etc.
Sounds great...
> - Add a template for linux-elf-586 with (optimized) code for a Pentium
> (gcc 2.8.0 not only supports -m486 but also -mpentium and -mpentiumpro).
> Why not use template names similar to the output of config.guess (maybe
> with some symbolic links)?
Erk...I think 'templates' are getting a little out of hand here,
no?
> - Why is there some code to change the case of the procedural language
> to lower case except for 'C' (in fact it's there twice)? Why not use
> strcasecmp and remove these pices of code?
I question this in *alot* of places...like why pg_dlopen is
defined as just 'dlopen()' in some ports *shrug* Why not just call it
directly? *raised eyebrow*
> These are all the things that I found after browsing through the code
> one night (primarily in backend/access, backend/catalog and
> backend/executor).
>
> Let me know what you think of the above list and I will proceed. If you
> have any hints on how I might proceed (especially with same_tuple)
> please don't hesitate. Expect the changes to be available somewhere
> after the weekend.
The only thing I ask is that you submit these in such a way that
they can be easily reviewed before committing them...we are in a beta mode
right now, and altho some of this makes for nice cleanups, some of this
should most likely be gingerly added...
If at all possible, a seperate patch for each point above would be
really good, with an explanation of each. If it weren't for beta-status,
I wouldn't care, since we could debug after, but with only 2/2.5 weeks
till release, we are getting tight for debugging...:(
