From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: Aleksandr Parfenov <a.parfenov@postgrespro.ru>,
 Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:40:48 +0300
Message-ID: <15264441.SM9BIHTig9@x200m>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <4468901.Ii3QHyQo2l@x200m>
References: <20180215213518.5btgsjhbjxlolife@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20180910180210.579b8303@asp437-ThinkPad-L380> <4468901.Ii3QHyQo2l@x200m>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart9519453.jD8hoCmVmG";
 micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: bulk


--nextPart9519453.jD8hoCmVmG
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

=D0=92 =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=D0=BC=D0=B5 =D0=BE=D1=82 12 =D1=81=D0=B5=
=D0=BD=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2018 21:40:49 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=
=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Nikolay Shaplov =D0=
=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
> > As you mentioned in previous mail, you prefer to keep enum and
> > relopt_enum_element_definition array in the same .h file. I'm not s=
ure,
> > but I think it is done to keep everything related to enum in one pl=
ace
> > to avoid inconsistency in case of changes in some part (e.g. change=
 of
> > enum without change of array). On the other hand, array content cre=
ated
> > without array creation itself in .h file. Can we move actual array
> > creation into same .h file? What is the point to separate array con=
tent
> > definition and array definition?
>=20
> Hm... This would be good. We really can do it? ;-) I am not C-expert,=
 some
> aspects of C-development is still mysterious for me. So if it is real=
ly ok
> to create array in .h file, I would be happy to move it there  (This =
patch
> does not include this change, I still want to be sure we can do it)
I've discussed this issue with a colleague, who IS C-expert, and his ad=
vice=20
was not to include this static const into .h file. Because copy of this=
 const=20
would be created in all objective files where this .h were included. An=
d it is=20
not the best way...=20

=2D-=20
Do code for fun.
--nextPart9519453.jD8hoCmVmG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAABCAAGBQJb2WqQAAoJEKc13HowK+H44X0IAJ4POQ0XvVSvuO33HWSReFqd
uVCDvlW0JSIJYNiisOHcyo0K8OVnWP19Z8Zk/LunHb/pmbQU/N5qrl50Dp/zZIw2
yIkWADBoEx1toPI1Z0s0RJRiL0CrpAEFYTYBqzXJN1jvGONZx9WmgD1prvw96FXl
qGjFMolJOV5qsxt1DnYg302D4Sj0LDaksbVv6QPJh/+YtYaYr+zZ+LGrWF69Sg+p
VUB/x8cwc2uWa122QRl1P1pbzN7grWJ8qnueEkK0z3U+jg3Cr46olb+ClUr2UqUp
pBp0i52kd3dSQh/as/7bDzMb0BuAxqdVDN+AGv51ws7e2glhspKf+ug+lRSnoFc=
=jNam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart9519453.jD8hoCmVmG--