On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 15:10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
>> This code-pattern appears many times in pgstatfuncs.c:
>> Datum
>> pg_stat_get_blocks_fetched(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
>> {
>> Oid relid = PG_GETARG_OID(0);
>> int64 result;
>> PgStat_StatTabEntry *tabentry;
>
>> if ((tabentry = pgstat_fetch_stat_tabentry(relid)) == NULL)
>> result = 0;
>> else
>> result = (int64) (tabentry->blocks_fetched);
>
>> PG_RETURN_INT64(result);
>> }
>
>
> I see nothing wrong with that style. Reducing it as you propose
> probably wouldn't change the emitted code at all, and what it would
> do is reduce flexibility. For instance, if we ever needed to add
> additional operations just before the RETURN (releasing a lock on
> the tabentry, perhaps) we'd just have to undo the "improvement".
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just trying to figure out why it's
there since I wanted to add other functions and it looked.. Odd. I'll
change my new functions to look like this for consistency, but I was
curious if there was some specific reason why it was better to do it
this way.
I see your answer as "no, not really any reason, but also not worth
changing", which is fine by me :-)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
