| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | why do we have rd_istemp? |
| Date: | 2010-04-23 00:45:30 |
| Message-ID: | v2r603c8f071004221745t7a65079ep9ac33948e2ae7f4a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?
...Robert
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why do we have rd_istemp? |
| Date: | 2010-04-23 04:46:35 |
| Message-ID: | 28900.1271997995@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
> always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?
Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.
regards, tom lane
| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why do we have rd_istemp? |
| Date: | 2010-05-31 20:03:57 |
| Message-ID: | 201005312003.o4VK3vq16767@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
> > always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?
>
> Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.
Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why do we have rd_istemp? |
| Date: | 2010-05-31 20:12:12 |
| Message-ID: | 18590.1275336732@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
>>> always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?
>>
>> Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.
> Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?
Doesn't strike me that it's worth the amount of code that would have to
change. rd_istemp is known in a lot of places. Replacing it with a
double indirection doesn't seem attractive anyway.
regards, tom lane