Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: type info refactoring

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: type info refactoring
Date: 2010-10-31 17:01:55
Message-ID: 23667.1288544515@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> ... I assumed that TypeInfo would be 
> embedded in other structs directly, rather than a pointer and palloc. 

Yeah, that would avoid the extra-pallocs complaint, although it might be
notationally a bit of a PITA in places like equalfuncs.c.  I think that
would end up needing a separate COMPARE_TYPEINFO_FIELD macro instead of
being able to treat it like a Node* field.

But I'm still wondering whether it's smart to try to promote all of this
fundamentally-auxiliary information to first-class status.  It's really
unclear to me that that will end up being a net win either conceptually
or notationally.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-10-31 17:16:36
Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-10-31 16:59:45
Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group