| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: de-deduplicate code in DML execution hooks in postgres_fdw |
| Date: | 2018-07-19 08:35:11 |
| Message-ID: | 5B504D3F.9070203@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2018/04/18 19:34), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Hi,
> While working on a fix related to non-direct DML [1], I noticed that
> postgresExecForeignInsert(), postgresExecForeignUpdate() and
> postgresExecForeignDelete() functions are almost identical except that
> postgresExecForeignInsert() doesn't require ctid. The fix that I was
> working is applicable to Delete and Update but can be useful for
> Insert as well. I had to add the same code to two places at least and
> might have missed fixing one of them. Why don't we have a single
> function which prepares the statement, extract parameters, executes
> the prepared statement and checks for the results, returned rows etc?
> It's been a while that these functions are there and haven't produced
> code which is a lot different for each of these cases. Here's a patch
> to extract that code into a separate function and use it in all the
> three hook implementations.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRfcgwsHRmpvoOK-GUQi-n8MgAS+OxcQo=aBDn1COywmcg@mail.gmail.com
+1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing
before.) But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's
wise to work on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My concern is:
if we do this refactoring now, we might need two patches for fixing the
issue in case of backpatching as the fix might need to change those
executor functions.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-19 08:36:57 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |
| Previous Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2018-07-19 08:04:01 | Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature |