On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Excerpts from richhguard-monotone's message of lun jun 13 16:10:17 -0400
>> 2011:
>>> Do you have any advice of how to handle the inner loops, such as those
>>> initializing ``stakindN''. The entries before can be handled just like in
>>> this patch, by using the symbolic constants.
>
>> Based on Tom's comments, I'd submit the patch without that bit, at least
>> as a first step.
>
> He already did no?
>
> I did think of a possible way to rewrite update_attstats: instead of
>
> for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
> {
> values[i++] = ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]); /* staopN */
> }
>
> do
>
> for (k = 0; k < STATISTIC_NUM_SLOTS; k++)
> {
> values[Anum_pg_statistic_staop1 - 1 + k] =
> ObjectIdGetDatum(stats->staop[k]);
> }
>
> etc. However, it's not clear to me whether this is really an
> improvement. Opinions?
I don't care that much, but IMV that's just gilding the lily.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
