Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > The problem with it of course is that mistaken use could have the
> > effect of casting-away-const, which is exactly what we hoped to
> > prevent. Still, there may not be a better solution.
>
> Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the compiler doesn't do the
> apparently-available optimizations using const precisely because it
> is so easy to cast away the property maliciously or accidentally.
Right. The compiler would have to look at the function code, and all
functions called by that function, to determine if const was honored ---
not something that is easily done.
I agree that the strchr() approach is best. I realize the patch only
added 1-2 new const functions, but this is only a small area of the code
being patched --- a full solution would have many more complex
duplicates, and awkward changes as we add features.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +