Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure toCopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot()
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure toCopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190516214019.GA18271@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure toCopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure to CopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-May-14, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:19:30PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > When I wrote the code I admit that I was probably wearing my > > object-orientated programming hat. I had in mind that the whole > > function series would have made a good class. Passing the > > CopyMultiInsertInfo was sort of the non-OOP equivalent to having > > this/Me/self available, as it would be for any instance method of a > > class. Back to reality, this isn't OOP, so I was wearing the wrong > > hat. I think the unused parameter should likely be removed. It's > > probably not doing a great deal of harm since the function is static > > inline and the compiler should be producing any code for the unused > > param, but for the sake of preventing confusion, it should be removed. > > Ashutosh had to ask about it, so it wasn't immediately clear what the > > purpose of it was. Since there's none, be gone with it, I say. > > Sounds fair to me. This has been introduced by 86b8504, so let's see > what's Andres take. If this were up to me, I'd leave the function signature alone, and just add (void) miinfo; /* unused parameter */ to the function code. It seems perfectly reasonable to have that function argument, and a little weird not to have it. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: