From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making aggregate deserialization (and WAL receive) functions slightly faster |
Date: | 2023-10-09 04:28:47 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvpvgH1axfCu96oJCnHPtkKc=Z=aEjNdxuqGnxnrLf5drw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 21:24, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 18:23, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > Ahem, well. Based on this argument my own argument does not hold
> > much. Perhaps I'd still use a macro at the top of array_userfuncs.c
> > and numeric.c, to avoid repeating the same pattern respectively two
> > and four times, documenting once on top of both macros that this is a
> > fake StringInfo because of the reasons documented in these code paths.
>
> I looked at the patch again and I just couldn't bring myself to change
> it to that. If it were a macro going into stringinfo.h then I'd agree
> with having a macro or inline function as it would allow the reader to
> conceptualise what's happening after learning what the function does.
I've pushed this patch. I didn't go with the macros in the end. I
just felt it wasn't an improvement and none of the existing code which
does the same thing bothers with a macro. I got the idea you were not
particularly for the macro given that you used the word "Perhaps".
Anyway, thank you for having a look at this.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-10-09 04:32:11 | Re: PGDOCS - add more links in the pub/sub reference pages |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-10-09 04:13:09 | Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort |