On 28.6.2014 21:29, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> rebase for 9.5
>
> test:
> \pset linestyle unicode \pset border 2
> \pset unicode_header_linestyle double
>
> \l
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
I did a quick review of the patch today:
* it applies cleanly to current HEAD (no failures, small offsets)
* compiles and generally seems to work just fine
Two questions:
(1) Shouldn't the new options be listed in '\?' (as possible names for
"pset")? I mean, here:
\pset [NAME [VALUE]] set table output option
(NAME :=
{format|border|expanded|fieldsep|fieldsep_zero|footer|null|
numericlocale|recordsep|recordsep_zero|tuples_only|title|tableattr|pager})
(2) I noticed this piece of code:
+typedef enum unicode_linestyle
+{
+ UNICODE_LINESTYLE_SINGLE = 0, /* to make sure someone initializes this
*/
+ UNICODE_LINESTYLE_DOUBLE = 1
+} unicode_linestyle;
Why are the values defined explicitly? These values are set by the
compiled automatically, so why set them manually? Only a few of the
other enums are defined explicitly, and most of them have to do that to
define different values (e.g. 0x01, 0x02, 0x04, ...).
I don't understand how the comment "to make sure someone initializes
this" explains the purpose?
regards
Tomas
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
