Re: type info refactoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: type info refactoring
Date
Msg-id 23667.1288544515@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: type info refactoring  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: type info refactoring
Re: type info refactoring
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> ... I assumed that TypeInfo would be 
> embedded in other structs directly, rather than a pointer and palloc. 

Yeah, that would avoid the extra-pallocs complaint, although it might be
notationally a bit of a PITA in places like equalfuncs.c.  I think that
would end up needing a separate COMPARE_TYPEINFO_FIELD macro instead of
being able to treat it like a Node* field.

But I'm still wondering whether it's smart to try to promote all of this
fundamentally-auxiliary information to first-class status.  It's really
unclear to me that that will end up being a net win either conceptually
or notationally.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name