Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW: patch: remove redundant code from pl_exec.c

2011-01-19 Thread Pavel Stehule
2011/1/19 Stephen Frost : > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I think we should reject this one. > > Works for me. > >> Using a switch there is a bit problematic since in some cases you want >> to use "break" to exit the loop.  We could replace such breaks by gotos, >> but that would be ano

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW: patch: remove redundant code from pl_exec.c

2011-01-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I think we should reject this one. Works for me. > Using a switch there is a bit problematic since in some cases you want > to use "break" to exit the loop. We could replace such breaks by gotos, > but that would be another strike against the argument tha

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW: patch: remove redundant code from pl_exec.c

2011-01-19 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > While I can certainly appreciate wanting to remove redundant code, I > don't think this change actually improves the situation. The problem is > more than just that we might want to make a change to 'while' but not > 'for', it's also that it makes it very difficult to foll

[HACKERS] REVIEW: patch: remove redundant code from pl_exec.c

2011-01-19 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > This patch remove redundant rows from PL/pgSQL executor (-89 lines). While I can certainly appreciate wanting to remove redundant code, I don't think this change actually improves the situation. The problem is more than just that we m