From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:23:39 -0500
Message-ID: <13281.1547738619@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201901171502.nh6krqterjdd@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <201901171502.nh6krqterjdd@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-16, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> ArchiveEntry((ArchiveArgs){.tablespace = 3,
>> .dumpFn = somefunc,
>> ...});
> Is there real savings to be had by doing this? What would be the
> arguments to each function? Off-hand, I'm not liking this idea too
> much.
I'm not either. What this looks like it will mainly do is create
a back-patching barrier, with little if any readability improvement.
I don't buy the argument that this would move the goalposts in terms
of how much work it is to add a new argument. You'd still end up
touching every call site.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, 9erthalion6@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring
In-Reply-To: <13281.1547738619@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox