Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
От | Peter Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHut+PtbJGK9_WS-0+EfO63pPWrPzATixWxdvfL-Zj6A3T1XyQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 1:33 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > >... > > Anyway, per my previous comments in my last message of this thread as > of https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y1nnwFTrnL3ItleP@paquier.xyz, > I don't see a need for DYNAMIC_DEFAULT from the other thread, nor do I > see a need to a style like that: > +/* GUC variable */ > +bool update_process_title = > +#ifdef WIN32 > + false; > +#else > + true; > +#endif > > I think that it would be cleaner to use the same approach as > checking_after_flush and similar GUCs with a centralized definition, > rather than spreading such style in two places for each GUC that this > patch touches (aka its declaration and its default value in > guc_tables.c). In any case, the patch of this thread still needs some > adjustments IMO. PSA patch v6. The GUC defaults of guc_tables.c, and the modified GUC C var declarations now share the same common #define'd value (instead of cut/paste preprocessor code). Per Michael's suggestion [1] to use centralized definitions. ------ [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y1nuDNZDncx7%2BA1j%40paquier.xyz Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: