|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> *-21.patch does what you suggested above, some hidden awkwardness
>> but much less that the previous one.
> Yeah, I think this is much nicer, don't you agree?
Yep, I said "less awkwarness than previous", a pretty contrived way to say
> However, this is still a bit broken -- you cannot return a stack
> variable from process_file, because the stack goes away once the
> function returns. You need to malloc it.
That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", and
why I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct?
addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it
would have to create an on purpose struct, but I then that would be more
awkwarness, and malloc/free to pass arguments between functions is not
efficient nor very elegant.
So the "static" option looked like the simplest & most elegant version.
> Also, you forgot to update the comments in process_file,
> process_builtin, etc.
Indeed. v22 attached with better comments.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2016-03-04 18:41:57||Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2016-03-04 18:27:35||Re: More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics|