| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg(at)bec(dot)de>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Date: | 2019-01-09 22:35:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20354.1547073331@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The length macro was readily available there so I used it. AFAIR
>> that wasn't true elsewhere, though I might've missed something.
>> It's pretty much just belt-and-suspenders coding anyway, since all
>> those arrays are machine generated ...
> I tried using the available num_keywords macro in plpgsql and it
> worked fine, but it makes the lines really long. Alternatively, as in
> the attached, we could remove the single use of the core macro and
> maybe add comments to the generated magic numbers.
Meh, I'm not excited about removing the option just because there's
only one use of it now. There might be more-compelling uses later.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-09 23:00:39 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-09 22:33:41 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |