On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Seki, Eiji <seki.e...@jp.fujitsu.com> > wrote: >> Thank you for your comments. >> >> I reflected these comments to the attached patch. And I renamed IGNORE_XXX >> flags to PROCARRAY_XXX flags. > > I checked the latest patch and I have some comments. > > +static int > +ConvertProcarrayFlagToProcFlag(int flags) > > I feel this function is not needed, if we try to maintain same flag values > for both PROC_XXX and PROCARRAY_XXX by writing some comments > in the both the declarations place to make sure that the person modifying > the flag values needs to update them in both the places. I feel it is > usually > rare that the flag values gets changed.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like a good idea to add additional computation to something that's already a known hot spot. -- 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
