Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KknpFLC1jEAP7n_fp65tTSd0nWnEQ65X=w=hCT8vB2ww@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> (I think we could drop the savepoint > >> too, no?) > > > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to > > explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this > > test. > > They'll go away anyway at the end of the transaction that the whole > script is wrapped in. That's right, will remove savepoint. > (But it might be worth choosing slightly less > generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests > later in that script.) > The function name and statement name seems okay to me. How about changing the table name to fooarr or arrtest? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: