From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype |
Date: | 2017-04-07 03:18:18 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRdxiB8qfgo_RpUeY7EmEfqvBA5_398CHf=UPmW59fZ_=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> ... One of
>> the earlier versions of that patch introduced a consider_typeid parameter
>> for which only ExecEvalConvertRowtype() passed true.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking of adding a flag along that line to fix this, but
> desisted after figuring out that ExecEvalConvertRowtype was the only
> candidate for using it. Ashutosh's patch had already shown that it'd
> be better to pass "false" there too, so we'd end up with no use cases
> at all.
Probably we should also add an assertion there to make sure
ExecEvalConvertRowtype never gets same input and output types. If
that's the case, we don't need the copy as well.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-07 03:19:07 | Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-07 03:16:21 | Re: No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype |