Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jun 14 10:30:28 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Excerpts from richhguard-monotone's message of lun jun 13 16:10:17 -0400
> > 2011:
> >> Do you have any advice of how to handle the inner loops, such as those
> >> initializing ``stakindN''. The entries before can be handled just like in
> >> this patch, by using the symbolic constants.
>
> > Based on Tom's comments, I'd submit the patch without that bit, at least
> > as a first step.
>
> He already did no?
I don't see the patch attached anywhere ...
> I did think of a possible way to rewrite update_attstats: instead of
>
> for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
> {
> values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]); /* staopN */
> }
>
> do
>
> for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
> {
> values[Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1 + k] =
> ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);
> }
>
> etc. However, it's not clear to me whether this is really an
> improvement. Opinions?
I guess the other option is
i = Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1;
for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
{
values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);
}
(I also tried moving the i initialization to the "for" first arg, but it
seems better this way)
Not sure what's better.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
