Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10145.1216357229@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Xiao Meng escribi�:
>> You can undefine the macro HASHVALUE_ONLY in hash.h to get the
>> original implementation.
> I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- it just
> makes the patch harder to read.
While we are griping about readability: failure to update the comments
to match the code is NOT, NOT, NOT acceptable. I had barely started
to read the patch before encountering this insult to the reader: /* Hash indexes are never lossy (at the moment
anyway)*/
- scan->xs_recheck = false;
+#ifdef HASHVALUE_ONLY
+ scan->xs_recheck = true;
+#else
+ scan->xs_recheck = false;
+#endif
The fact that the patch doesn't touch backend/access/hash/README is
already grounds for rejection, but can't you be bothered to fix a
comment that is literally one line away from where you are making
it wrong?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: