Re: record identical operator - Review

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: record identical operator - Review
Date: 2013-10-03 17:50:39
Message-ID: 1380822639.82702.YahooMailNeo@web162904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> wrote:

> You haven't adjusted the patch to reduce the duplication between the
> equality and comparison functions, if you disagree with me and feel that
> doing so would increase the code complexity and be inconsistent with how
> we do things elsewhere that is fine.

I think the main reason to keep them separate is that it makes it
easier to compare record_cmp to record_image_cmp and record_eq to
record_image_eq to see what the differences and similarities are.
Other reasons are that I think all those conditionals inside a
combined function would get messy and make the logic harder to
understand.  The number of places that would need conditionals,
plus new wrappers that would be needed, would mean that the net
reduction in lines of code would be minimal.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-10-03 17:53:47 Re: record identical operator
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-10-03 17:50:08 Re: No Index-Only Scan on Partial Index