| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
| Date: | 2021-05-10 14:14:08 |
| Message-ID: | 622002.1620656048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:09:29PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
>> Please search PG source code for "ScanData skey[1];" - there are
>> dozens of precedents where other people felt the same as me for
>> declaring single keys.
> AFAICT there are 73 occurences vs 62 of the "Scandata skey;". I don't think
> there's a huge consensus for one over the other.
Yeah, there's no real consensus about that. But in this case there's
a strong reason to use skey[1]: it makes the patch a very safe one-liner.
To convert to the other pattern would require touching more code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-05-10 14:36:16 | pg_stat_statements requires compute_query_id |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-10 14:09:40 | Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0 |