Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqSLi8vyEVfC+kQ1WkA896YaOPDFHksmY5ne6uF9jjJWDw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-12-01 17:52 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin@gmail.com>: >> One maybe slightly surprising behaviour is that -f - can be specified >> multiple times and only the first one has an effect since the others >> act on an exhausted stdin. But I don't think forbidding multiple -f - >> is better. I don't see any good reason to forbid it actually. This simplifies the code and it's not like this would break psql. >> As for the code (these still apply to Michael's latest patch): >> >> 1. the be compiler quiete comment is not good English, /* silence the >> compiler */ would be better or remove it completely Fixed. Indeed I didn't notice that. >> 2. shouldn't atyp in SimpleActionListCell be of type enum _atypes? >> Otherwise why an enum if it's casted to int when actually used? If >> it's an enum the repeated ifs on cell->atyp should be a switch, either >> with a default Assert(0) or no default which makes gcc give a warning >> if an enum value is ever added without having a corresponding case. > It is maybe different topic - the psql uses enums and ints very freely. So I > wrote code consistent with current code. Yeah, I don't think that's a big issue either to be honest. The code is kept consistent a maximum with what is there previously. Patch is switched to ready for committer. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: