From: | "Meskes, Michael" <meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend |
Date: | 1998-03-23 15:02:57 |
Message-ID: | 11720CEF3853D011AC0C00A024B7A9E11125D0@einstein.topsystem.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, but since it is, why don't we inline it? Is there a possible
caveat?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
meskes(at)debian(dot)org | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [SMTP:maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 4:08 PM
> To: meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend
> > Isn't this a good solution? A function only called by one other
> function has
> > its right to exist only for readability. And this optimization could
> be done
> > automatically.
>
> Wouldn't be such a big deal if it was not call so many times.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania
> 19026
> + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
> + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-03-23 15:05:14 | Final one...? |
Previous Message | Meskes, Michael | 1998-03-23 14:59:41 | RE: [HACKERS] problem with current snapshot |