From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | richhguard-monotone(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' |
Date: | 2011-06-13 14:03:49 |
Message-ID: | 15755.1307973829@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:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:26 AM, <richhguard-monotone(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>> It's a readability improvement in src/backend/commands/comment.c (CreateComments function), which changes the existing code from incrementing a variable for use as the array index, to use explicit ``values'' instead.
> Wow. That code is pretty ugly, all right. I think, though, that we
> probably ought to be using the Apg_description_<columnname> constants
> instead of writing 0-3. Care to update the patch?
Historically this i++ approach has been used in a lot of places that
fill in system catalog tuples. We've fixed some of them over time, but
I doubt this is the only one remaining. If we're going to try to remove
it here, maybe we ought to try to fix them all rather than just this
one. I agree that the main point of doing so would be to introduce the
greppable Apg_xxx constants, and so just using hard-coded integers is
not much of an improvement.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2011-06-13 14:03:58 | pgbench cpu overhead (was Re: lazy vxid locks, v1) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-13 14:03:28 | Re: wrong message on REASSIGN OWNED |