| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2025-10-28 17:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0sNkuaNngrXPBsDTpdyHmFJxFPDa=ehgeGk6m1+UVTp9g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 07:04:59PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > > v4 corrects some code comments.
> >
> > The fix in the first patch looks good, thanks.
>
> Yeah, I think this general idea is sensible. However, I think we should
> take it one step further and just remove last_loc entirely. I think
> this makes the code a bit clearer. How about the attached?
getting rid of last_loc makes sense because the list is sorted makes
sense. I like this, definitely cleaner.
One minor comment is to change is to remove the "let's save it" but
in the comments, as we are no longer saving a last_loc.
/*
- * We have a valid location for a constant that's not
a dupe, let's
- * save it. Lex tokens until we find the desired constant.
+ * We have a valid location for a constant that's not
a dupe. We Lex
+ * tokens until we find the desired constant.
*/
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-10-28 17:57:54 | Re: Consistently use the XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() macro |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-10-28 17:37:10 | Re: [BUG] temporary file usage report with extended protocol and unnamed portals |