> > 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... > I agree with all of your proposals and integrated them into v9. Thank you very much!
-- Best regards, Pavel Borisov Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>
v9-0001-Covering-SP-GiST-index-support-for-INCLUDE-column.patch
Description: Binary data
