Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As a result, ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultTupleSlot(), > ExecTypeFromTL(), and ExecCleanTypeFromTL() are now all trivial > (1 line) functions. I could have replaced these with macros, but I > didn't: does anyone thinks that would be worth doing?
Please use names for the replacement routines that are more clear than "fooInternal". You can get away with that kind of name for a static function, but I think globally visible ones should have more meaningful names. For ExecTypeFromTLInternal, maybe use ExecTupDescFromTL, which is a more accurate name in the first place ... As for the Slot functions, I agree with getting rid of the macros, which seem to add little except obfuscation. But I see no need to introduce an extra layer of calls. Why not make them all go directly to ExecAllocTableSlot(estate->es_tupleTable)? I don't see that planstate->ps_ResultTupleSlot = ExecInitExtraTupleSlot(estate); is better than planstate->ps_ResultTupleSlot = ExecAllocTableSlot(estate->es_tupleTable); regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html