On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Tom Lane 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.
ok, it's not a big deal to remove code. I think it's time to submit rbtree.
> regards, tom lane
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-09 16:59:41|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-02-09 16:51:16|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication in docs|