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

Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH]

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH]
Date: 2011-02-01 16:51:55
Message-ID: AANLkTikyS4wC8pAaB5AMNQLe_HkmBjKyAfY9KoZPp4B1@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:22, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> This looks pretty good. But why are we bothering to keep $prolog at all any
> more, if all we're going to pass it is &PL_sv_no all the time? Maybe we'll
> have a use for it in the future, but right now we don't appear to unless I'm
> missing something.

I don't see any reason to keep it around.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-02-01 17:01:39
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-01 16:43:29
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"

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