Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup
Дата
Msg-id 6449.1108096332@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Ответы Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Список pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> ... Looking for two periods is pretty ugly. I was thinking we
> might be able to look at the for loop variable: if it was previously
> undeclared, it must be an integer for loop. If it was declared but is
> not of a row or record type, it must also be an integer for loop.

Congratulations, you just reinvented the scheme we used before 8.0.
It's *not* an improvement.  The dot-dot business is better.  At least,
I'm not going to hold still for reverting this logic when there have
so far been zero field complaints about it, and there were plenty of
complaints about the test based on variable datatype.

> Yes, that's a good point. I'll change the patch to just elide the
> previous entry from the stack of callbacks, which is going to be
> plpgsql_compile_error_callback (unfortunately we can't actually verify
> that, AFAICS, since that callback is private to pl_comp.c)

IMHO verifying that is well worth an extern.

            regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Mark Kirkwood
Дата:
Сообщение: [Fwd: Re: [DOCS] How the planner uses statistics]
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [Fwd: Re: [DOCS] How the planner uses statistics]