Re: [BUGS] object_classes array is broken, again
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] object_classes array is broken, again |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29788.1437411581@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] object_classes array is broken, again (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] object_classes array is broken, again
Re: [BUGS] object_classes array is broken, again |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> What about adding StaticAsserts that lengthof() the relevant constant >> arrays is equal to MAX_OCLASS? (Or other similar ways of checking >> that they have the right number of entries.) > Well, the array itself is declared like this: > static const Oid object_classes[MAX_OCLASS] = { > so testing lengthof() of it is useless because it's a constant and the > assertion always holds. If it were declared like this instead: > static const Oid object_classes[] = { > then we could use lengthof(). Ah. I think the point of using MAX_OCLASS there was to get a warning if the array was too short, but evidently it doesn't work like that. > I don't see any drawwbacks to that. +1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether which would be very nice for switch purposes. Are there any other arrays that need such tests? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: