From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: copyParamList |
Date: | 2016-07-27 14:21:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2_bvaqzczpz_HPBB=k1SnRfGD7k0MvyUhN3ojuosVQg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Okay, that makes sense to me apart from minor issue reported by
>>> Andrew. I think we might want to slightly rephrase the comments on
>>> top of copyParamList() which indicates only about dynamic parameter
>>> hooks.
>>
>> I don't see why it needs to be changed - can you explain in more
>> detail what you have in mind?
>>
>
> Basically after this function, usage of ParamListInfo doesn't need to
> care for value of paramMask as you have already ignored the required
> params. I think it is quite apparent from the code, but as the
> similar information is mention for dynamic parameter hooks, I thought
> we might want to update it. If you don't feel the need of same, then
> leave it as it is.
Yeah, I don't see a need to mention that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-07-27 14:26:45 | [Patch] RBTree iteration interface improvement |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-27 14:09:34 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |