From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
Date: | 2021-05-10 09:16:53 |
Message-ID: | 20210510091653.34m65yftd4gi5kbr@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:09:29PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:36 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The function GetSubscriptionRelations was declaring ScanKeyData
> > > skey[2]; but actually
> > > only uses 1 scan key. It seems like the code was cut/paste from other
> > > nearby functions
> > > which really are using 2 keys.
> > >
> > > PSA a trivial patch to declare the correct number of keys for this function.
> >
> > +1 for the change. It looks like a cut/paste type introduced by the
> > commit 7c4f52409a.
> >
> > A comment on the patch: why do we need to declare an array of 1
> > element ScanKeyData skey[1];? Instead, can we just do ScanKeyData
> > skey;?
>
> IMO declaring skey[1] is better because then the code can share the
> same pattern as every other ScanData skey[n] code.
>
> Please search PG source code for "ScanData skey[1];" - there are
> dozens of precedents where other people felt the same as me for
> declaring single keys.
AFAICT there are 73 occurences vs 62 of the "Scandata skey;". I don't think
there's a huge consensus for one over the other.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-05-10 09:30:31 | Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator |
Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-05-10 09:15:58 | Executor code - found an instance of a WHILE that should just be an IF |