From: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(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: Why do we have MakeSingleTupleTableSlot instead of not using MakeTupleTableSlot? |
Date: | 2021-02-12 16:09:56 |
Message-ID: | CALNJ-vQSqRuZ98crM+DRUajNuN0FyBSv-nU9+S-vsS-n=-YFVg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
MakeSingleTupleTableSlot can be defined as a macro, calling
MakeTupleTableSlot().
Cheers
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder, is there a specific reason that MakeTupleTableSlot is
> wrapped up in MakeSingleTupleTableSlot without doing anything than
> just returning the slot created by MakeTupleTableSlot? Do we really
> need MakeSingleTupleTableSlot? Can't we just use MakeTupleTableSlot
> directly? Am I missing something?
>
> I think we can avoid some unnecessary function call costs, for
> instance when called 1000 times inside table_slot_create from
> copyfrom.c or in some other places where MakeSingleTupleTableSlot is
> called in a loop.
>
> If it's okay to remove MakeSingleTupleTableSlot and use
> MakeTupleTableSlot instead, we might have to change in a lot of
> places. If we don't want to change in those many files, we could
> rename MakeTupleTableSlot to MakeSingleTupleTableSlot and change it in
> only a few places.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> With Regards,
> Bharath Rupireddy.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-02-12 16:11:58 | Re: Possible dereference after null check (src/backend/executor/ExecUtils.c) |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-02-12 16:08:02 | Re: Possible dereference null return (src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c) |