Re: Replacing lfirst() with lfirst_node() appropriately in planner.c

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replacing lfirst() with lfirst_node() appropriately in planner.c
Date: 2017-09-06 09:07:29
Message-ID: 20170906090729.pgfgctt672646z5c@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> > BTW, I think we *could* use "lfirst_node(List, ...)" in cases where
> > we know the list is supposed to be a list of objects rather than ints
> > or Oids. I didn't do anything about that observation, though.
>
> IMO, it won't be apparent as to why some code uses lfirst_node(List,
> ...) and some code uses (List *) lfirst().

Yeah -- based on that argument, I too think we should leave those alone.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2017-09-06 09:14:25 Re: psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-09-06 08:36:02 Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?