From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Array initialisation notation in syscache.c |
Date: | 2022-12-21 00:33:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKoPH31RBTAqq9MaTSocc2C28b9yFd9CJeYNrekc+oKgw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Do you think this is better?
>
> I'm not at all on board with adding runtime overhead to
> save maintaining the nkeys fields.
I don't see how to do it at compile time without getting the
preprocessor involved. What do you think about this version?
[ATTNUM] = {
AttributeRelationId,
AttributeRelidNumIndexId,
KEY(Anum_pg_attribute_attrelid,
Anum_pg_attribute_attnum),
128
},
> I'm kind of neutral on using "[N] = " as a substitute for
> ordering the entries correctly. While that does remove
> one failure mode, it seems like it adds another (ie
> failure to provide an entry at all would be masked).
It fails very early in testing if you do that. Admittedly, the
assertion is hard to understand, but if I add a new assertion close to
the cause with a new comment to say what you did wrong, I think that
should be good enough?
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Improve-notation-of-cacheinfo-table-in-syscache.c.patch | text/x-patch | 23.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-12-21 00:51:34 | Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II) |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2022-12-21 00:14:48 | Avoid lost result of recursion (src/backend/optimizer/util/inherit.c) |