Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130614160736.GI19500@alap2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-14 11:59:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > > I have a question about the commit though: shouldn't both functions be > > static if they are in a .h file? Otherwise, it could lead to naming > > conflicts. I suppose it's wrong to include the implementation file > > twice, but it still might be confusing if someone tries. Two ideas that > > come to mind are: > > * make both static and then have a trivial wrapper in checksum.c > > * export one or both functions, but use #ifndef CHECKSUM_IMPL_H to > > prevent redefinition > > Ah, you are right, I forgot the #ifndef CHECKSUM_IMPL_H dance. Will fix > in a bit. That won't help against errors if it's included in two different files/translation units though. I don't really see a valid case where it could be validly be included multiple times in one TU? If anything we should #error in that case, but I am not sure it's worth bothering. E.g. in rmgrlist.h we have the following comment: /* there is deliberately not an #ifndef RMGRLIST_H here */ and I think the reasoning behind that comment applies here as well. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: