Re: extended stats on partitioned tables

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/12/21 16:37, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>> Since the rte (RangeTblEntry*) doesn't seem to be used beyond checking
>> inh, I think it would be better if the above style of checking is used
>> throughout the patch (without introducing rte variable).

> It's mostly a matter of personal taste, but I always found this style of
> condition (i.e. dereferencing a pointer returned by a function) much
> less readable. It's hard to parse what exactly is happening, what struct
> type are we dealing with, etc. YMMV but the separate variable makes it
> much clearer for me. And I'd expect the compilers to produce pretty much
> the same code too for those cases.

FWIW, I agree. Also, it's possible that future patches would create a
need to touch the RTE again nearby, in which case having the variable
makes it easier to write non-crummy code for that.

regards, tom lane