On 2/1/19 12:10 PM, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> here is a rebased version of previous patch with planner
> comment included
>
It's really hard to say which comment is that ..
FWIW I find the changes in nodeLimit lacking sufficient comments. The
comments present are somewhat obvious - what we need are comments
explaining why things happen. For example the LIMIT_INITIAL now includes
this chunk of code:
case LIMIT_INITIAL:
if (node->limitOption == PERCENTAGE)
{
/*
* Find all rows the plan will return.
*/
for (;;)
{
slot = ExecProcNode(outerPlan);
if (TupIsNull(slot))
{
break;
}
tuplestore_puttupleslot(node->totalTuple, slot);
}
}
Ignoring the fact that the comment is incorrectly indented, it states a
rather obvious fact - that we fetch all rows from a plan and stash them
into a tuplestore. What is missing is comment explaining why we need to
do that.
This applies to other changes in nodeLimit too, and elsewhere.
Another detail is that we generally leave a free line before "if", i.e.
instead of
}
if (node->limitOption == PERCENTAGE)
{
it should be
}
if (node->limitOption == PERCENTAGE)
{
because it's fairly easy to misread as "else if". Even better, there
should be a comment before the "if" explaining what the branch does.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
