From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove Value node struct |
Date: | 2021-09-09 07:23:54 |
Message-ID: | af4727ba-9dad-9eb1-fdee-d5e600951c6a@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.09.21 04:04, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:22:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote in
>> On 30.08.21 04:13, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>>> + else if (IsA(obj, Integer))
>>> + _outInteger(str, (Integer *) obj);
>>> + else if (IsA(obj, Float))
>>> + _outFloat(str, (Float *) obj);
>>> I felt that the type enames are a bit confusing as they might be too
>>> generic, or too close with the corresponding binary types.
>>> - Node *arg; /* a (Value *) or a (TypeName *) */
>>> + Node *arg;
>>> Mmm. It's a bit pity that we lose the generic name for the value
>>> nodes.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean here.
>
> The member arg loses the information on what kind of nodes are to be
> stored there. Concretely it just removes the comment "a (Value *) or a
> (TypeName *)". If the (Value *) were expanded in a straight way, the
> comment would be "a (Integer *), (Float *), (String *), (BitString *),
> or (TypeName *)". I supposed that the member loses the comment because
> it become too long.
Ok, I added the comment back in in a modified form.
The patches have been committed now. Thanks.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-09-09 07:39:41 | Re: [PROPOSAL] new diagnostic items for the dynamic sql |
Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2021-09-09 07:17:27 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |