Re: Hard to maintain duplication in contain_volatile_functions_not_nextval_walker

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hard to maintain duplication in contain_volatile_functions_not_nextval_walker
Date: 2016-06-01 02:12:48
Message-ID: CA+TgmobNUfob7hybx_r4Oion-vFTj8ipvZgHiRMgGyazduezzw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> contain_volatile_functions_walker is duplicated, near entirely, in
>> contain_volatile_functions_not_nextval_walker.
>
> Previously, I also had same observation.
>
>> Wouldn't it have been better not to duplicate, and keep a flag about
>> ignoring nextval in the context variable?
>
> makes sense. +1 for doing it in the way as you are suggesting.

+1 from me, too.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-06-01 02:13:24 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-06-01 02:11:01 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?