| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Define variables in the approprieate scope |
| Date: | 2020-03-24 00:50:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20200324005055.GC14565@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:00:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Mar-18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 09:35:52AM +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > > I've noticed that two variables in RelationCopyStorage() are defined in a
> > > scope higher than necessary. Please see the patch.
> >
> > It seems cleaner to me to allocate the variables once before the loop
> > starts, rather than for each loop iteration.
>
> If we're talking about personal preference, my own is what Antonin
> shows. However, since disagreement has been expressed, I think we
> should only change it if the generated code turns out better.
I am fine with either usage, frankly. I was just pointing out what
might be the benefit of the current coding.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-24 01:04:24 | Re: Define variables in the approprieate scope |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-23 23:50:36 | Autovacuum vs vac_update_datfrozenxid() vs ? |