On 11/29/19 4:34 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that there is no point to have the variable aset in
>> Command because this structure includes already MetaCommand, so the
>> information is duplicated. [...] Perhaps I am missing something?
>
> Yep. ISTM that you are missing that aset is not an independent meta
> command like most others but really changes the state of the previous
> SQL command, so that it needs to be stored into that with some
> additional fields. This is the same with "gset" which is tagged by a
> non-null "varprefix".
>
> So I cannot remove the "aset" field.
>
>> And I would suggest to change readCommandResponse() to use a
>> MetaCommand in argument.
>
> MetaCommand is not enough: we need varprefix, and then distinguishing
> between aset and gset. Although this last point can be done with a
> MetaCommand, ISTM that a bool is_aset is clear and good enough. It is
> possible to switch if you insist on it, but I do not think it is desirable.
Michael, do you agree with Fabien's comments?
> Attached v4 removes an unwanted rebased comment duplication and does
> minor changes while re-reading the code.
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2091.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net