Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please use names for the replacement routines that are more clear
> > than "fooInternal". You can get away with that kind of name fo
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PRO
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For ExecTypeFromTLInternal, maybe use ExecTupDescFromTL, which is a
>> more accurate name in the first place
> What's the logic in having ExecTypeFromTL() and ExecCleanTypeFromTL()
> implemented in terms of a function called ExecTupDescFromTL()? i.e. if
>
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
The only function I named "fooInte
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?
This patch refactors execTuples.c in two ways:
(1) ExecInitXXXResultTupleSlot() used a macro to avoid some
duplicated code, whereas calling ExecInitExtraTupleSlot() would
make the code more clear.
(2) ExecTypeFromTL() and ExecCleanTypeFromTL() duplicated a bunch
