Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype
Date: 2017-04-07 03:18:18
Message-ID: CAFjFpRdxiB8qfgo_RpUeY7EmEfqvBA5_398CHf=UPmW59fZ_=Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> ... One of
>> the earlier versions of that patch introduced a consider_typeid parameter
>> for which only ExecEvalConvertRowtype() passed true.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking of adding a flag along that line to fix this, but
> desisted after figuring out that ExecEvalConvertRowtype was the only
> candidate for using it. Ashutosh's patch had already shown that it'd
> be better to pass "false" there too, so we'd end up with no use cases
> at all.

Probably we should also add an assertion there to make sure
ExecEvalConvertRowtype never gets same input and output types. If
that's the case, we don't need the copy as well.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-04-07 03:19:07 Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-04-07 03:16:21 Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype