Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''
| От | Tom Lane | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27858.1308061828@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from richhguard-monotone's message of lun jun 13 16:10:17 -0400 2011:
>> Do you have any advice of how to handle the inner loops, such as those initializing ``stakindN''. The entries before
canbe handled just like in this patch, by using the symbolic constants.
 
> Based on Tom's comments, I'd submit the patch without that bit, at least
> as a first step.
He already did no?
I did think of a possible way to rewrite update_attstats: instead of
       for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)       {           values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);
/*staopN */       }
 
do
       for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)       {           values[Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1 + k] =
ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);      }
 
etc.  However, it's not clear to me whether this is really an
improvement.  Opinions?
        regards, tom lane
		
	В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: