| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: machine-readable explain output |
| Date: | 2009-06-15 16:49:22 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906150949y3c77ae4asa844fc60c44e1587@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Hmm... on further review, I'm thinking this is still a bit wastful,
>> because we don't really need (I think) to call
>> TupleDescGetAttInMetadata from begin_tup_output_tupdesc. But I'm not
>> sure what the best way is to avoid that. Any thoughts?
>
> Er, just don't do it? We shouldn't need it if the function is doing
> heap_form_tuple directly.
Oh, I guess that works. I had thought there might be people calling
begin_tup_output_tupdesc() who wanted to go on to call
BuildTupleFromCStrings(), but it seems that's not the case. In fact,
it looks like I can probably rip that member out of TupOutputState
altogether.
Will update patch. Does this look like what you were thinking otherwise?
Thanks,
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich) | 2009-06-15 16:53:48 | Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-06-15 16:30:37 | Re: Suppressing occasional failures in copy2 regression test |