(2018/07/20 13:49), Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:35:11PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
>> But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
>> on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My concern is: if we do this
>> refactoring now, we might need two patches for fixing the issue in case of
>> backpatching as the fix might need to change those executor functions.
>
> FWIW, I would think that if some cleanup of the code is obvious, we
> should make it without waiting for the other issues to settle down
> because there is no way to know when those are done,
I would agree to that if we were late in the development cycle for PG12.
> and this patch
> could be forgotten.
I won't forget this patch. :)
> Looking at the proposed patch, moving the new routine closer to
> execute_dml_stmt and renaming it execute_dml_single_row would be nicer.
Or execute_parameterized_dml_stmt?
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita