Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Surafel Temesgen
Subject Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Date
Msg-id CALAY4q9hzE3qE9gQkzFB7Lnh=usK-2Q-s=Ucspsc10EXk+umdQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:49 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2019-Nov-28, Surafel Temesgen wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:36 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think you should add a /* fall-though */ comment after changing state.
> > Like this (this flow seems clearer; also DRY):
> >
> >                 if (!node->noCount &&
> >                     node->position - node->offset >= node->count)
> >                 {
> >                     if (node->limitOption == LIMIT_OPTION_COUNT)
> >                     {
> >                         node->lstate = LIMIT_WINDOWEND;
> >                         return NULL;
> >                     }
> >                     else
> >                     {
> >                         node->lstate = LIMIT_WINDOWEND_TIES;
> >                         /* fall-through */
> >                     }
> >                 }
> >                 else
> >                     ...
>
> changed

But you did not read my code snippet, did you ...?

I don't see it. changed to it and rebased to current master

regards
Surafel
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "k.jamison@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: VACUUM memory management
Next
From: Pengzhou Tang
Date:
Subject: Re: Errors when update a view with conditional-INSTEAD rules