RE: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays
От | Smith, Peter |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201DD0641B056142AC8C6645EC1B5F62014B91B2E8@SYD1217 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays (Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:32 PM >Typical Example: >Before: > Datum values[Natts_pg_attribute]; > bool nulls[Natts_pg_attribute]; > ... > memset(values, 0, sizeof(values)); > memset(nulls, false, sizeof(nulls)); >After: > Datum values[Natts_pg_attribute] = {0}; > bool nulls[Natts_pg_attribute] = {0}; > >I hope you'll forgive a noob question. Why does the "After" initialization for the boolean array have {0} rather than {false}? It is a valid question. I found that the original memsets that this patch replaces were already using 0 and false interchangeably. So I just pickedone. Reasons I chose {0} over {false} are: (a) laziness, and (b) consistency with the values[] initialiser. But it is no problem to change the bool initialisers to {false} if that becomes a committer review issue. Kind Regards -- Peter Smith Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: