From: | Yuya Watari <watari(dot)yuya(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |
Date: | 2023-08-03 06:08:32 |
Message-ID: | CAJ2pMkbuQOfjPhGbTQo19-bCW48Q_mmNRSyDWRHOC1vL0t6kVQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM Andrey Lepikhov
<a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> You introduced list_ptr_cmp as an extern function of a List, but use it
> the only under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING ifdef.
> Maybe you hide it under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING or remove all the stuff?
Thank you for your quick reply and for pointing that out. If we remove
the verification code when committing this patch, we should also
remove the list_ptr_cmp() function because nobody will use it. If we
don't remove the verification, whether to hide it by
USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is a difficult question. The list_ptr_cmp() can be
used for generic use and is helpful even without assertions, so not
hiding it is one option. However, I understand that it is not pretty
to have the function compiled even though it is not referenced from
anywhere when assertions are disabled. As you say, I think hiding it
by USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is also a possible solution.
--
Best regards,
Yuya Watari
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-08-03 06:15:13 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-08-03 05:26:50 | Re: Use of additional index columns in rows filtering |