Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: richhguard-monotone <richhguard-monotone(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''
Date: 2011-06-14 14:30:28
Message-ID: 27858.1308061828@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from richhguard-monotone's message of lun jun 13 16:10:17 -0400 2011:
>> Do you have any advice of how to handle the inner loops, such as those initializing ``stakindN''. The entries before can be handled just like in this patch, by using the symbolic constants.

> Based on Tom's comments, I'd submit the patch without that bit, at least
> as a first step.

He already did no?

I did think of a possible way to rewrite update_attstats: instead of

for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
{
values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]); /* staopN */
}

do

for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
{
values[Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1 + k] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);
}

etc. However, it's not clear to me whether this is really an
improvement. Opinions?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-14 14:35:53 Re: ITYM DROP TABLE
Previous Message Cédric Villemain 2011-06-14 14:29:36 [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost