| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Westermann <dwe(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Subject: | Re: support for MERGE |
| Date: | 2022-03-09 17:44:42 |
| Message-ID: | 202203091744.o27bb2gpex2j@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Mar-07, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> For v13-0003-MERGE-SQL-Command-following-SQL-2016.patch :
>
> + * Reset per-tuple memory context to free any expression evaluation
> + * storage allocated in the previous cycle.
> + */
> + ResetExprContext(econtext);
>
> Why is the memory cleanup done in the next cycle ? Can the cleanup be done
> at the end of the current cycle ?
I have removed that, because Andres had already pointed out that it was
redundant with the reset done in the caller.
> + * XXX Should this explain why MERGE has the same logic as UPDATE?
>
> I think explanation should be given.
Actually, the routine in question is only handling insert, not UPDATE,
so MERGE is not relevant to the function. I have removed the comment.
This was probably a leftover from work prior to 86dc90056dfd; that
commit made it all irrelevant.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana" (Orual)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-03-09 17:47:23 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2022-03-09 17:40:53 | Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks |