Re: Reasons not to like asprintf
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4124.1382470830@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reasons not to like asprintf
Re: Reasons not to like asprintf Re: Reasons not to like asprintf |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
... BTW, another reason to choose identical APIs for frontend and backend versions of these functions is that it greatly eases use of them in shared frontend/backend code. As I notice somebody has *already done* in common/relpath.c. I'm not exactly sure how those psprintf calls are working at all in frontend builds. Maybe they aren't quite, and that has something to do with the failures on anole? In order to avoid having to clutter stuff like that with #ifdef FRONTENDs, I'm now thinking we should use exactly the same names for the frontend and backend versions, ie psprintf() and pvsprintf(). The main reason for considering a pg_ prefix for the frontend versions was to avoid cluttering application namespace; but it's already the case that we don't expect libpgcommon to be namespace clean. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: