Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:11:50 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb
Message-ID: <20190722151150.GA22364@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBaU_YfksDTTbvwRKoMg_r6gh7i_T+gRYgAfdNym6BJODjsSQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jul-22, Julien Rouhaud wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:11 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> >        simple_string_list_append(&tables, optarg);
> > +      tbl_count++;
> >        break;
> > The number of items in a simple list is not counted, and vacuumdb does
> > the same thing to count objects.  What do you think about extending
> > simple lists to track the number of items stored?
> 
> I considered this, but it would require to adapt all code that declare
> SimpleStringList stack variable (vacuumdb.c, clusterdb.c,
> createuser.c, pg_dumpall.c and pg_dump.c), so it looked like too much
> trouble to avoid 2 local variables here and 1 in vacuumdb.c.  I don't
> have a strong opinion here, so I can go for it if you prefer.

Can we use List for this instead?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services