| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Removing another gen_node_support.pl special case |
| Date: | 2022-11-29 21:34:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1225000.1669757670@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I notice that EquivalenceClass is already marked as no_copy_equal,
> which means that gen_node_support.pl can know that emitting a
> recursive node-copy or node-compare request is a bad idea. What
> do you think of using the patch as it stands, plus a cross-check
> that we don't emit COPY_NODE_FIELD or COMPARE_NODE_FIELD if the
> target node type is no_copy or no_equal?
Concretely, it seems like something like the attached could be
useful, independently of the other change.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cross-check-that-node-support-exists.patch | text/x-diff | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-29 21:39:04 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-11-29 21:29:09 | Re: Collation version tracking for macOS |