From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PREPARE code notes |
Date: | 2002-09-10 07:27:05 |
Message-ID: | 20020910092705.A14303@zf.jcu.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, it's bad. Is there any way to "fix" executor? Maybe in far
future we will save to cache all planns and copyObject() is not
performance winning.
> > 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.
I don't believe :-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-09-10 07:31:30 | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-09-10 07:11:35 | Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue |