2015-03-10 16:53 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>: > On 3/10/15 9:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array functions >>> do >>> that too so I will not hold that against you. (Maybe somebody should >>> write >>> separate patch that would put all that duplicate code into common >>> function?) >>> >>> I think this patch is ready for committer so I am going to mark it as >>> such. >>> >> >> The documentation in this patch needs some improvements to the >> English. Can anyone help with that? >> > > I'll take a look at it. > > The documentation should discuss what happens if the array is >> multi-dimensional. >> >> The code for array_offset and for array_offset_start appear to be >> byte-for-byte identical. There's no comment explaining why, but I bet >> it's to make the opr_sanity test pass. How about adding a comment? >> >> The comment for array_offset_common refers to array_offset_start as >> array_offset_startpos. >> >> I am sure in agreement with the idea that it would be good to factor >> out the common typecache code (for setting up my_extra). Any chance >> we get a preliminary patch that does that refactoring, and then rebase >> the main patch on top of it? I agree that it's not really this >> patch's job to solve that problem, but it would be nice. >> > > Since this patch is here and ready to go I would prefer that we commit it > and refactor later. I can tackle that unless Pavel specifically wants to.
I'll look on this part this evening - but I don't have any idea how to find some common pattern yet. So I am with Jim - we can do it later. Regards Pavel > > -- > Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting > Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com >
