| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing PQsetvalue() |
| Date: | 2011-07-21 16:19:59 |
| Message-ID: | 15336.1311265199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So I finally got around to taking a look at this patch, and I guess my
> basic feeling is that I like it. The existing code is pretty weird
> and inconsistent: the logic in PQsetvalue() basically does the same
> thing as the logic in pqAddTuple(), but incompatibly and less
> efficiently. Unifying them seems sensible, and the fix looks simple
> enough to back-patch.
Yeah, I've been looking at it too. For some reason I had had the
idea that the proposed patch complicated the code, but actually it's
simplifying it by removing almost-duplicate code. So that's good.
The patch as proposed adds back a bug in return for the one it fixes
(you can not free() the result of pqResultAlloc()), but that's easily
fixed.
Will fix and commit.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2011-07-21 16:46:02 | Re: Single pass vacuum - take 1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-21 16:17:19 | Re: Single pass vacuum - take 1 |