I'll withdraw this particular patch and resubmit later on. (Sorry for the individual reply Tom, I hit the wrong keys before noticing)
Nigel On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Nigel J. Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On a matter of style, it's been a while since I've seriously considered cross > > > platform C. Is it the done thing to expect: > > > int *i = (int *)calloc(1,sizeof(int)); > > > to give the condition *i == 0 (assuming the memory allocation worked)? > > > > calloc is defined to zero out the block of memory it returns (as opposed > > to malloc which may return a block containing any random junk). > > I was thinking more of any odd cpu that might be around which, for some strange > reason, doesn't read, for example 32 bits of zero as an integer of zero. > Obviously it's probably taking paranoid programming to an extreme and in the > real world probably not worth worrying about but there's always a chance. > > > > > A more serious question is whether any of this code should be using > > calloc/malloc as opposed to palloc. I'd prefer to see it rewritten to > > use palloc wherever possible; but that begs the question of what the > > required lifespan of the allocations is. > > I wasn't sure of the life time needed and in the interests of not making > changes that broke a workign arrangment I left it not using palloc. > > > > > + #ifndef NULL > > + #define NULL ((void *)0) > > + #endif > > > > It has been roughly twenty years since a C platform existed that didn't > > predefine NULL ... and the ones that did not would likely not recognize > > the ANSI-C-ism "void *". So the above is unhelpful by any measure. > > Fair point. I didn't include postgres.h on purpose, again to avoid introducing > new things that broke an existing working arrangement. Obviously I didn't pay > too much attention to the portability of what I did put in. > > I'll take another look at this tonight, along with the formating style used, > which I see has been made more normal looking in cvs head. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match