2011/8/8 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of lun ago 08 03:12:20 -0400 2011: >> >>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>> So, it seems to me the interface should return a pointer to the entry >>> of array being specified, rather than above approach. >>> >>> E.g, the above macro could be probably rewritten as follows: >>> #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype) \ >>> (get_object_property(objtype)->attnum_name) >> >> I don't understand why don't you just do something like >> >> #define get_object_property_attnum_name(objtype, attnum_name_value) \ >> (get_object_property((objtype), NULL, NULL, (attnum_name_value), NULL, >> NULL))) >> >> and the caller does >> >> AttrNumber attnum_name; >> get_object_property_attnum_name(OBJTYPE_TABLE, &attnum_name); >> >> i.e. the caller must still pass pointers, instead of expecting the >> values to be returned. > > We could do that, but what the heck is the point? What benefit are > we trying to get by not returning a pointer to the structure? I feel > like we're making this ludicrously complicated with no real > justification of why all of this complexity is adding any value. > I agree with Robert's opinion. It seems to me we have little benefit to keep the structure condidential to other components.
Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
