From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Get rid of runtime handling of AlternativeSubPlan?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 11:59:26 -0400
Message-ID: <120052.1601222366@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvp8aMtBPhoSEc2KeVypKOKvbV1FJ6s1EirxvkNCfR9rrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1992952.1592785225@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3740825.1598743596@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvqhcEab0aJ29C+yznHiUHNqoKvTOL+sz0p3a1SNon4ntg@mail.gmail.com>
<3968496.1598888506@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4117348.1598894531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvqeh8JEqMjpCFTgHD_zu2S03nOVh2srejd+sNLza8M+mg@mail.gmail.com>
<63837.1601154207@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvp8aMtBPhoSEc2KeVypKOKvbV1FJ6s1EirxvkNCfR9rrQ@mail.gmail.com>
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 10:03, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> And if it's true, why would we change all the call sites
>> rather than improving the pg_list.h macros?
> Maybe we should. Despite the non-NIL check and length check in
> list_head(), list_second_cell(), list_third_cell() functions, the
> corresponding macro will crash anyway if those functions were to
> return NULL.
Hm, good point.
> We might as well just use list_nth_cell() to get the
> ListCell without any checks to see if the cell exists. I can go off
> and fix those separately. I attached a 0004 patch to help explain what
> I'm talking about.
Yeah, that should be dealt with separately.
>> It seemed to me that dealing with the general case would make
>> fix_alternative_subplan() noticeably more complex and less obviously
>> correct. I might be wrong though; what specific coding did you have in
>> mind?
> I had thought something like 0003 (attached). It's a net reduction of
> 3 entire lines, including the removal of the comment that explained
> that there's always two in the list.
Meh. This seems to prove my point, as it's in fact wrong; you are only
nulling out the discarded subplans-list entry in one of the two cases.
Once you fix that it's not really shorter anymore, nor clearer. Still,
I suppose there's some value in removing the assumption about exactly
two subplans.
I'll fix up fix_alternative_subplan and push this. I think the other
topics should be raised in separate threads.
Thanks for reviewing!
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Get rid of runtime handling of AlternativeSubPlan?
In-Reply-To: <120052.1601222366@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox