Defining dedicated macro to grab a relation's persistence
Hi all,
After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
was being used directly in the backend code and wondered if it would
not be useful to add a dedicated macro in rel.h to get the persistence
of a relation like in the patch attached. (Note: it is actually used
39 times).
Thoughts?
--
Michael
Attachments:
20141107_relation_persistence.patchapplication/x-patch; name=20141107_relation_persistence.patchDownload+44-37
Hi,
On 2014-11-07 22:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
was being used directly in the backend code and wondered if it would
not be useful to add a dedicated macro in rel.h to get the persistence
of a relation like in the patch attached. (Note: it is actually used
39 times).
I personally find the direct access actually more readable, so I'm not a
fan of further extending the scheme. Consistency with some other common
accessors is an argument though.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-11-07 22:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
After looking at a patch of this commit fest using
rd_rel->relpersistence, I got a look at how many times this expression
was being used directly in the backend code and wondered if it would
not be useful to add a dedicated macro in rel.h to get the persistence
of a relation like in the patch attached. (Note: it is actually used
39 times).I personally find the direct access actually more readable, so I'm not a
fan of further extending the scheme. Consistency with some other common
accessors is an argument though.
What you meant is "relation->rd_rel->relpersistence" is more readable than
"RelationGetPersistence(relation)" ??
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
Show quoted text
Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
Fabr�zio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
I personally find the direct access actually more readable, so I'm not a
fan of further extending the scheme. Consistency with some other common
accessors is an argument though.What you meant is "relation->rd_rel->relpersistence" is more readable than
"RelationGetPersistence(relation)" ??
I too have a hard time getting excited about this change. I'd just
leave it alone.
--
�lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers