| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring: join MakeSingleTupleTableSlot() and MakeTupleTableSlot() |
| Date: | 2021-10-26 11:48:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TMgFyTTroBUOgRvBoLuSyBug+4jCNKr_jK2yYnS=i8Sbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro,
> Did you see the arguments at [1]?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1632520.1613195514%40sss.pgh.pa.us
No, I missed it. Thanks for sharing.
> If you dig in the git history (see f92e8a4b5 in particular) you'll note
> that the current version of MakeTupleTableSlot originated as code shared
> between ExecAllocTableSlot and MakeSingleTupleTableSlot.
> [...]
> In short: I'm not okay with doing
> s/MakeTupleTableSlot/MakeSingleTupleTableSlot/g in a patch that doesn't
> also introduce matching ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot calls (unless those
> exist somewhere already; but where?). If we did clean that up, maybe
> MakeTupleTableSlot could become "static". But I'd still be inclined to
> keep it physically separate, leaving it to the compiler to decide whether
> to inline it into the callers.
> [...]
OK, I will need some time to figure out the actual difference between
these two functions and to submit an updated version of the patch.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-10-26 11:54:37 | Re: Refactoring: join MakeSingleTupleTableSlot() and MakeTupleTableSlot() |
| Previous Message | Rafia Sabih | 2021-10-26 11:46:48 | Re: Add connection active, idle time to pg_stat_activity |