From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PREPARE code notes |
Date: | 2002-09-09 15:51:08 |
Message-ID: | 11102.1031586668@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> 1/ ExecuteQuery() (line 110). Why is needful use copyObject()? The
> PostgreSQL executor modify query planns?
Yes, and yes. Unfortunately.
> 2/ Lines 236 -- 245. Why do you "check for pre-existing entry of
> same name" if you create hash table? I think better is use "else"
> for this block of code and check it only if hash table already
> exist.
The code reads more cleanly as-is; changing it as you suggest would
create an unnecessary interdependency between two logically distinct
concerns.
> 3/ Last is cosmetic: see line 404, what happen if memory context
> is not valid? :-) (maybe use some elog() call)
Or just get rid of the MemoryContextIsValid test --- it shouldn't
ever not be valid. Not very important though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stanislav Silnitski | 2002-09-09 16:01:12 | IN FIRE |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-09-09 15:48:09 | Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue |