Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27858.1308061828@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''
Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from richhguard-monotone's message of lun jun 13 16:10:17 -0400 2011: >> Do you have any advice of how to handle the inner loops, such as those initializing ``stakindN''. The entries before canbe handled just like in this patch, by using the symbolic constants. > Based on Tom's comments, I'd submit the patch without that bit, at least > as a first step. He already did no? I did think of a possible way to rewrite update_attstats: instead of for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++) { values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]); /*staopN */ } do for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++) { values[Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1 + k] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]); } etc. However, it's not clear to me whether this is really an improvement. Opinions? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: