| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add_path optimization |
| Date: | 2009-02-02 14:50:57 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070902020650p3e1861c4of9c0aefeb855f088@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> well, true - but also, statically allocated table, without any predefined
> size (with #DEFINE) , and no boundary check - is bad as well.
> I suppose , this code is easy enough to let it be with your changes, but I
> would still call it not pretty.
Well, it might merit a comment.
> Actually - if you did profile postgresql with bunch of queries, I wouldn't
> mind to see results of it - I don't know whether it makes sense to send that
> to the list (I would think it does), but if it is too big, or something -
> you could send it to me in private.
What I'd really like to do is develop some tests based on a publicly
available dataset. Any suggestions?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-02 15:34:36 | Re: why declare arg as a array in FunctionCallInfoData structure |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2009-02-02 14:48:12 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |