Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20210510091653.34m65yftd4gi5kbr@nol обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys
Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:09:29PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:36 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The function GetSubscriptionRelations was declaring ScanKeyData > > > skey[2]; but actually > > > only uses 1 scan key. It seems like the code was cut/paste from other > > > nearby functions > > > which really are using 2 keys. > > > > > > PSA a trivial patch to declare the correct number of keys for this function. > > > > +1 for the change. It looks like a cut/paste type introduced by the > > commit 7c4f52409a. > > > > A comment on the patch: why do we need to declare an array of 1 > > element ScanKeyData skey[1];? Instead, can we just do ScanKeyData > > skey;? > > IMO declaring skey[1] is better because then the code can share the > same pattern as every other ScanData skey[n] code. > > Please search PG source code for "ScanData skey[1];" - there are > dozens of precedents where other people felt the same as me for > declaring single keys. AFAICT there are 73 occurences vs 62 of the "Scandata skey;". I don't think there's a huge consensus for one over the other.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: