Re: cleanup execTuples.c - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: cleanup execTuples.c
Date
Msg-id 200312012308.hB1N8Zm11127@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cleanup execTuples.c  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Patch applied.  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > Please use names for the replacement routines that are more clear
> > than "fooInternal".  You can get away with that kind of name for a
> > static function, but I think globally visible ones should have more
> > meaningful names.
>
> The only function I named "fooInternal" was ExecTypeFromTLInternal,
> which is static.
>
> > For ExecTypeFromTLInternal, maybe use ExecTupDescFromTL, which is a
> > more accurate name in the first place
>
> What's the logic in having ExecTypeFromTL() and ExecCleanTypeFromTL()
> implemented in terms of a function called ExecTupDescFromTL()? i.e. if
> we're going to be renaming functions, wouldn't it make sense to rename
> the public API functions, not the internal static functions?
>
> > As for the Slot functions, I agree with getting rid of the macros,
> > which seem to add little except obfuscation.  But I see no need to
> > introduce an extra layer of calls.  Why not make them all go
> > directly to ExecAllocTableSlot(estate->es_tupleTable)?
>
> Yeah, I was considering that, both ways seemed about equal to me.
>
> Attached is a revised version of the patch. I've adopted Tom's
> suggestion for the slot functions. For renaming
> ExecTypeFromTLInternal(), I haven't changed the name of the function
> (see my comments above), but if you clarify what you're suggesting, I
> can submit another version of the patch.
>
> BTW, this code includes the comment:
>
>  *        Currently there are about 4 different places where we create
>  *        TupleDescriptors.  They should all be merged, or perhaps be
>  *        rewritten to call BuildDesc().
>
> Aside from the fact that BuildDesc() doesn't exist anymore AFAICS,
> would this still be a reasonable reorganization to make?
>
> -Neil

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Sean Chittenden
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?