В письме от 28 октября 2015 16:57:36 пользователь Michael Paquier написал:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> >> Or it's ready to commit, and just not marked this way?
> > 
> > No, I don't think we have reached this state yet.
> > 
> >> I am going to make report based on this patch in Vienna. It would be
> >> nice to have it committed until then :)
> > 
> > This is registered in this November's CF and the current one is not
> > completely wrapped up, so I haven't rushed into looking at it.
> So, I have finally been able to look at this patch in more details,
> resulting in the attached. I noticed a couple of things that should be
> addressed, mainly:
> - addition of a new routine text_to_bits to perform the reverse
> operation of bits_to_text. This was previously part of
> tuple_data_split, I think that it deserves its own function.
> - split_tuple_data should be static
> - t_bits_str should not be a text, rather a char* fetched using
> text_to_cstring(PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP(4)). This way there is no need to
> perform extra calculations with VARSIZE and VARHDRSZ
> - split_tuple_data can directly use the relation OID instead of the
> tuple descriptor of the relation
> - t_bits was leaking memory. For correctness I think that it is better
> to free it after calling split_tuple_data.
> - PG_DETOAST_DATUM_COPY allocates some memory, this was leaking as
> well in raw_attr actually. I refactored the code such as a bytea* is
> used and always freed when allocated to avoid leaks. Removing raw_attr
> actually simplified the code a bit.
> - I simplified the docs, that was largely too verbose in my opinion.
> - Instead of using VARATT_IS_1B_E and VARTAG_EXTERNAL, using
> me, those other ones are much more low-level and not really spread in
> the backend code.
> - Found some typos in the code, the docs and some comments. I reworked
> the error messages as well.
> - The code format was not really in line with the project guidelines.
> I fixed that as well.
> - I removed heap_page_item_attrs for now to get this patch in a
> bare-bone state. Though I would not mind if this is re-added (I
> personally don't think that's much necessary in the module
> actually...).
> - The calculation of the length of t_bits using HEAP_NATTS_MASK is
> more correct as you mentioned earlier, so I let it in its state.
> That's actually more accurate for error handling as well.
> That's everything I recall I have. How does this look?
You've completely rewrite everything ;-)

Let everything be the way you wrote. This code is better than mine.

With one exception. I really  need heap_page_item_attrs function. I used it in 
my Tuples Internals presentation 
and I am 100% sure that this function is needed for educational purposes, and 
this function should be as simple as possible, so students cat use it without 
extra efforts.

I still have an opinion that documentation should be more verbose, than your 
version, but I can accept your version.

Who is going to add heap_page_item_attrs to your patch? me or you?

Nikolay Shaplov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to