On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It seems a bit strange to have all the rb_free_recursive support and not
>>> use it anywhere ... and a freefunc callback even, whose only caller
>>> seems to set as null currently. Hmm, even in the knngist patch the
>>> rb_freefunc stuff is unused.
>> I don't think it's inappropriate; it doesn't seem implausible that
>> someone might want to free an rbtree someday. I suppose we could
>> comment it out but I guess I don't see the point.
> I think the suggestion was to *remove* it not comment it out. I'm
> skeptical of carrying dead code. If the functionality is not used
> in the proposed gist patches then it's very fair to question whether
> it ever will be used.
I don't think the question is unfair; I just don't happen to agree
with the conclusion. But I don't care enough to argue about it
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-09 04:43:08|
|Subject: Re: [CFReview] Red-Black Tree|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-09 04:32:31|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby documentation|