> 27 авг. 2020 г., в 21:03, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> see v8
For me is the only concerning point is putting nullmask and varatt bits into
tuple->nextOffset.
But, probably, we can go with this.
But let's change macro a bit. When I see
SGLT_SET_OFFSET(leafTuple->nextOffset, InvalidOffsetNumber);
I expect that leafTuple->nextOffset is function argument by value and will not
be changed.
For example see ItemPointerSetOffsetNumber() - it's not exposing ip_posid.
Also, I'd propose instead of
>*(leafChainDatums + i * natts) and leafChainIsnulls + i * natts
using something like
>int some_index = i * natts;
>leafChainDatumsp[some_index] and &leafChainIsnulls[some_index]
But, probably, it's a matter of taste...
Also I'm not sure would it be helpful to use instead of
>isnull[0] and leafDatum[0]
more complex
>#define SpgKeyIndex 0
>isnull[SpgKeyIndex] and leafDatum[SpgKeyIndex]
There is so many [0] in the patch...
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
