| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
| Date: | 2021-05-10 09:09:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PutJbJhDNKU36iwYwvBofGRUB+sbXiT7QpuROGvneSstQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:36 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > The function GetSubscriptionRelations was declaring ScanKeyData
> > skey[2]; but actually
> > only uses 1 scan key. It seems like the code was cut/paste from other
> > nearby functions
> > which really are using 2 keys.
> >
> > PSA a trivial patch to declare the correct number of keys for this function.
>
> +1 for the change. It looks like a cut/paste type introduced by the
> commit 7c4f52409a.
>
> A comment on the patch: why do we need to declare an array of 1
> element ScanKeyData skey[1];? Instead, can we just do ScanKeyData
> skey;?
IMO declaring skey[1] is better because then the code can share the
same pattern as every other ScanData skey[n] code.
Please search PG source code for "ScanData skey[1];" - there are
dozens of precedents where other people felt the same as me for
declaring single keys.
--------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-05-10 09:15:58 | Executor code - found an instance of a WHILE that should just be an IF |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-10 08:57:21 | Re: Race condition in recovery? |