From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Refactoring: join MakeSingleTupleTableSlot() and MakeTupleTableSlot() |
Date: | 2021-10-26 11:54:37 |
Message-ID: | 202110261154.yyqlftx4svrk@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Oct-26, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > In short: I'm not okay with doing
> > s/MakeTupleTableSlot/MakeSingleTupleTableSlot/g in a patch that doesn't
> > also introduce matching ExecDropSingleTupleTableSlot calls (unless those
> > exist somewhere already; but where?). If we did clean that up, maybe
> > MakeTupleTableSlot could become "static". But I'd still be inclined to
> > keep it physically separate, leaving it to the compiler to decide whether
> > to inline it into the callers.
Another point that could be made is that perhaps
MakeSingleTupleTableSlot should always construct a slot using virtual
tuples rather than passing TTSOps as a parameter?
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ellos andaban todos desnudos como su madre los parió, y también las mujeres,
aunque no vi más que una, harto moza, y todos los que yo vi eran todos
mancebos, que ninguno vi de edad de más de XXX años" (Cristóbal Colón)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shruthi Gowda | 2021-10-26 13:24:54 | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) |
Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2021-10-26 11:48:47 | Re: Refactoring: join MakeSingleTupleTableSlot() and MakeTupleTableSlot() |