From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Small code cleanup |
Date: | 2020-06-01 16:23:07 |
Message-ID: | AA29DE3E-302C-48F1-B9D4-C5CF389E0E21@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 1, 2020, at 8:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> One line change to remove a duplicate check.
>
> The comment just above this mentions a connection to the "Finish printing
> the footer information about a table" stanza below. I think some work is
> needed to clarify what's going on there --- it doesn't seem actually
> buggy, but there are multiple lies embedded in these comments. I'm also
> questioning somebody's decision to wedge partitioning into this logic
> without refactoring any existing if's, as they seem to have done. At the
> very least we're issuing useless queries here, for instance looking for
> inheritance parents of matviews.
Yeah, I noticed the `git blame` last night when writing the patch that you had originally wrote the code around 2017, and that the duplication was introduced in a patch committed by others around 2018. I was hoping that you, as the original author, or somebody involved in the 2018 patch, might have a deeper understanding of what's being done and volunteer to clean up the comments.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-06-01 16:26:47 | Re: Compatible defaults for LEAD/LAG |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-01 15:53:00 | Re: Small code cleanup |