Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Refactoring (was: transformExpr() refactor)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring (was: transformExpr() refactor)
Date: 2005-01-18 16:17:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:15:57 +1100, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >900 line functions are almost
> >universally bad 
> Amen.  So you might be interested in reviewing
> ;-)

Hmm.  I think this is a good idea on principle, but what happens in case
a previous vacuum was interrupted?  Is there a possibility that tuples
belonging to that vacuum are still marked MOVED_OFF but are not in
vacpage->offsets, for example?

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Sailesh KrishnamurthyDate: 2005-01-18 20:45:50
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2005-01-18 15:08:01
Subject: Refactoring (was: transformExpr() refactor)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group