Thread: Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone
out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by
such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till
after you merge.
IIRC the reason for the separation is that long ago in Berkeley days,
a TargetEntry could contain either a Resdom or an Fjoin ... but we got
rid of Fjoin in 7.4 (it was broken long before that) and it's not likely
to come back.
The advantage of folding 'em together is code simplification and
elimination of palloc overhead. I doubt it'll really make for a
measurable speedup, but I think it's worth doing anyway to simplify
the code.
Objections?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:19:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. > There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice > versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Gee, I was looking at that code and nearby comments three days ago and wondering if I'd do that. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré voy a acabar con todos / con todos los humanos acabaré (Bender)
--On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. > There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice > versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone > out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by > such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till > after you merge. > The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this. However, i don't think this is something too hard to change in our current patch, as long as all fields are kept and keep their functionality. [...] -- Bernd
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:27:46AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote: > --On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > wrote: > > >I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. > >There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice > >versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone > >out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by > >such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till > >after you merge. > > The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this. You mean _is_ affected by this, I guess. The change was already committed. One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.) (I guess if you are following development closely you should be subscribed to pgsql-committers.) -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan" (A. Christie)
--On Donnerstag, April 07, 2005 20:48:12 -0400 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > > One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for > objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes > way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.) > Hehe, i noticed that after hitting "sent"...it's not that bad. I didn't manage to follow the lists the last 2 days, and was awaiting objections from Jaime Casanova, first. > (I guess if you are following development closely you should be > subscribed to pgsql-committers.) I am already, thanks :) -- Bernd