Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division
От | David Fetter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130628142514.GA2500@fetter.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:54:55PM +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jeevan Chalke < > jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > I hope this is the latest patch to review, right ? > > > > I am going to review it. > > > > I have gone through the discussion on this thread and I agree with Stephen > > Frost that it don't add much improvements as such but definitely it is > > going to be easy for contributors in this area as they don't need to go all > > over to add any extra parameter they need to add. This patch simplifies it > > well enough. > > > > Will post my review soon. > > > > > Assuming *makeFuncArgs_002.diff* is the latest patch, here are my review > points. > > About this patch and feature: > === > This patch tries to reduce redundancy when we need FuncCall expression. With > this patch it will become easier to add new parameter if needed. We just > need > to put it's default value at centralized location (I mean in this new > function) > so that all other places need not require and changes. And this new > parameter > is handled by the new feature who demanded it keep other untouched. > > Review comments on patch: > === > 1. Can't apply with "git apply" command but able to do it with patch -p1. > So no > issues > 2. Adds one whitespace error, hopefully it will get corrected once it goes > through pgindent. > 3. There is absolutely NO user visibility and thus I guess we don't need any > test case. Also no documentation are needed. > 4. Also make check went smooth and thus assumes that there is no issue as > such. > Even I couldn't find any issue with my testing other than regression suite. > 5. I had a code walk-through over patch and it looks good to me. However, > following line change seems unrelated (Line 186 in your patch) > > ! $$ = (Node *) makeSimpleA_Expr(AEXPR_OP, "~~", $1, > (Node *) n, @2); > ! > > Changes required from author: > === > It will be good if you remove unrelated changes from the patch and possibly > all > white-space errors. > > Thanks Thanks for the review! Please find attached the latest patch. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: