From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schizophrenic coding in gin_extract_jsonb(_hash) |
Date: | 2014-05-07 15:27:29 |
Message-ID: | 28555.1399476449@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:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The early-exit code path supposes that JB_ROOT_COUNT is absolutely
>> reliable as an indicator that there's nothing in the jsonb value.
>> On the other hand, the realloc logic inside the iteration loop implies
>> that JB_ROOT_COUNT is just an untrustworthy estimate. Which theory is
>> correct? And why is there not a comment to be seen anywhere? If the code
>> is correct then this logic is certainly worthy of a comment or three.
> JsonbIteratorNext() is passed "false" as its skipNested argument. It's
> recursive.
And?
I think you're just proving the point that this code is woefully
underdocumented. If there were, somewhere, some comment explaining
what the heck JB_ROOT_COUNT actually counts, maybe I wouldn't be asking
this question. jsonb.h is certainly not divulging any such information.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-05-07 15:56:25 | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 15:19:11 | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |