Re: Unify drop-by-OID functions

Em ter., 5 de mai. de 2020 às 14:29, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:

> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:22 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Ok, so the question. If (3) is not safe, obvious we shouldn't use, and
> must call table_close, after systable_endscan.
> > Now (1) and (2), I would have no hesitation in using it.
> > I work with ERP, and throughout the time, the later, lock resources and
> release them soon, the better, for the performance of the system as a whole.
> > Even if it doesn't make much difference locally, using this process,
> throughout the system, efficiency is noticeable.
> > Apparently, it is more code, but it is less resources used and for less
> time.
> > And (2), if it is a case, frequently, no table would be blocked in this
> function.
>
> Nobody here is going to question the concept that it's better to use
> resources for less time rather than more, but the wisdom of sticking
> to well-established coding patterns instead of inventing altogether
> new ones is also well-understood. There are often good reasons why the
> code is written in the way that it is, and it's important to
> understand those before proposing to change things.
>
I see, the famous "cliché".

regards,
Ranier Vilela

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>