Re: Reasons not to like asprintf
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY2ZkAjke8v4mF-Hf+T1yhnntsTbhiNP4Bs-vqGEFUSdw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reasons not to like asprintf
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On 10/22/13, 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > > While this is attractive, the same logic would suggest that we rename > pg_malloc() to palloc(), and that sounds wrong. The frontend and > backend functions do have different freeing semantics. I'd almost be inclined to go the other way and suggest that we try to use the pg_ prefix more, at least for things to be shared between front and back end code. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: