From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |
Date: | 2019-09-17 04:06:18 |
Message-ID: | 20190917040618.GD1660@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:23:45AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We always return a single tuple/record from this function, so do we
> really need to return SETOF record or just returning record is
> sufficient?
Right (with the doc update).
> If you want to use the same size array, then you might want to just
> memset the previous array rather than first freeing it and then again
> allocating it. This is not a big point, so any which way is fine.
Sure. This is less expensive though, so changed it the way you
are suggesting on my local branch.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-09-17 05:13:39 | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-09-17 03:53:45 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |