| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument |
| Date: | 2017-01-25 23:11:03 |
| Message-ID: | 21113.1485385863@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> It means "another call to tuplesort_gettupleslot", but I believe that
> it would be safer (more future-proof) to actually specify "the slot
> contents may be invalidated by any subsequent manipulation of the
> tuplesort's state" instead.
WFM.
>> There are several other uses of "call here", both in this patch and
>> pre-existing in tuplesort.c, that I find equally vague and unsatisfactory.
>> Let's try to improve that.
> Should I write a patch along those lines?
Please. You might want to hit the existing ones with a separate patch,
but it doesn't much matter; I'd be just as happy with a patch that did
both things.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-01-25 23:11:32 | Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-01-25 23:08:15 | Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument |