| From: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2012-01-29 15:17:08 |
| Message-ID: | CACw0+13q+XXz=Q18fLThQ2a6arPj7VVLDxuFGBpfLmGO5eQ3UA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But even if you do know that subclassing
> is intended, that doesn't prove that the particular Archive object is
> always going to be an ArchiveHandle under the hood. If it is, why not
> just pass it as an ArchiveHandle to begin with?
I know that you took back some of your comments, but I'm with you
here. Archive is allocated as an ArchiveHandle and then casted back to
Archive*, so you always know that an Archive is an ArchiveHandle. I'm
all for getting rid of Archive and just using ArchiveHandle throughout
pg_dump which would get rid of these useless casts. I admit that I
might have made it a bit worse by adding a few more of these casts but
the fundamental issue was already there and there is precedence for
casting between them in both directions :-)
Joachim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-29 17:00:49 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelínek | 2012-01-29 13:20:00 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |