Hi,
On 7/1/19 2:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yup, here's a rebase against HEAD (and I also find that check-world shows
> no problems).
Thanks - no further comments.
> This is pretty much of a pain to maintain, since it changes
> the API for lnext() which is, um, a bit invasive. I'd like to make a
> decision pretty quickly on whether we're going to do this, and either
> commit this patch or abandon it.
>
IMHO it is an improvement over the existing API.
>> There is some unneeded MemoryContext stuff in async.c's
>> pg_listening_channels() which should be cleaned up.
>
> Yeah, there's a fair amount of follow-on cleanup that could be undertaken
> afterwards, but I've wanted to keep the patch's footprint as small as
> possible for the moment. Assuming we pull the trigger, I'd then go look
> at removing the planner's duplicative lists+arrays for RTEs and such as
> the first cleanup step. But thanks for the pointer to async.c, I'll
> check that too.
>
Yeah, I only called out the async.c change, as that function isn't
likely to change in any of the follow up patches.
Best regards,
Jesper
