Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls
От | Marko Kreen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACMqXCKM-ooPR=qXpvauvHi1ZjdijijE0Jjtum0SAZAow7Ri-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls
Re: allowing multiple PQclear() calls |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote: > 2012-12-11 16:09 keltezéssel, Simon Riggs írta: > >> On 11 December 2012 12:18, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote: >> >>>>> Such mechanism already exist - you just need to set >>>>> your PGresult pointer to NULL after each PQclear(). >>>> >>>> So why doesn't PQclear() do that? >>> >>> >>> Because then PQclear() would need a ** not a *. Do you want its >>> interface changed for 9.3 and break compatibility with previous versions? >> >> No, but we should introduce a new public API call that is safer, >> otherwise we get people continually re-inventing new private APIs that >> Do the Right Thing, as the two other respondents have shown. >> > > How about these macros? * Use do { } while (0) around the macros to get proper statement behaviour. * The if() is not needed, both PQclear and PQfinish do it internally. * Docs Should the names show somehow that they are macros? Or is it enough that it's mentioned in documentation? -- marko
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: