| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example |
| Date: | 2023-06-03 22:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | ZHvAFA_sBibWpyrR@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 03:34:30PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Agree. It is a simple example and I don't think it's going to be
> useful to make a complicated one out of it.
It does not have to be complicated, but I definitely agree that we'd
better spend some efforts in improving it as a whole especially
knowing that this is mentioned on the docs as an example that one
could rely on.
> The order of the calls it currently uses however may be extremely
> confusing for newcomers. It creates an impression that this particular
> order is extremely important while in fact it's not and it takes time
> to figure this out.
+ * The order of PushActiveSnapshot() and SPI_connect() is not really
+ * important.
FWIW, looking at the patch, I don't think that this is particularly
useful.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-03 22:38:24 | Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-06-03 22:21:27 | Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test |