Re: small pg_dump code cleanup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: small pg_dump code cleanup
Date
Msg-id ZmCUYtIhD5wEQR4s@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: small pg_dump code cleanup  (Neil Conway <neil.conway@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: small pg_dump code cleanup
Re: small pg_dump code cleanup
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 12:22:03PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> Nice cleanup! Two minor comments:

Thanks for taking a look.

> (1) Names like `getXXX` for these functions suggest to me that they return
> a value, rather than side-effecting. I realize some variants continue to
> return a value, but the majority no longer do. Perhaps a name like
> lookupXXX() or readXXX() would be clearer?

What about collectXXX() to match similar functions in pg_dump.c (e.g.,
collectRoleNames(), collectComments(), collectSecLabels())?

> (2) These functions malloc() a single ntups * sizeof(struct) allocation and
> then index into it to fill-in each struct before entering it into the hash
> table. It might be more straightforward to just malloc each individual
> struct.

That'd increase the number of allocations quite significantly, but I'd be
surprised if that was noticeable outside of extreme scenarios.  At the
moment, I'm inclined to leave these as-is for this reason and because I
doubt it'd result in much cleanup, but I'll yield to the majority opinion
here.

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: small pg_dump code cleanup
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: use CREATE DATABASE STRATEGY = FILE_COPY in pg_upgrade