Thread
Commits
-
Refactor code of reindexdb for query generation
- 9adda24543e3 13.0 landed
-
cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2019-05-12T09:16:28Z
Hi, As discussed in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOBaU_Yo61RwNO3cW6WVYWwH7EYMPuexhKqufb2nFGOdunbcHw@mail.gmail.com, current coding in reindexdb.c is error prone, and reindex_system_catalogs() is also not really required. I attach two patches to fix both (it could be squashed in a single commit as both are straightforward), for upcoming v13.
-
Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2019-05-13T03:09:52Z
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:16:28AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > I attach two patches to fix both (it could be squashed in a single > commit as both are straightforward), for upcoming v13. Squashing both patches together makes the most sense in my opinion as the same areas are reworked. I can notice that you have applied pgindent, but the indentation got a bit messed up because the new enum ReindexType is missing from typedefs.list. I have reworked a bit your patch as per the attached, tweaking a couple of places like reordering the elements in ReindexType, reviewing the indentation, etc. At the end I can see more reasons to use multiple switch/case points as if we add more options in the future then we have more code paths to take care of. These would unlikely get forgotten, but there is no point to take this risk either, and that would simplify future patches. It is also possible to group some types together when assigning the object name similarly to what's on HEAD. -- Michael
-
Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2019-06-28T07:25:00Z
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:09 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:16:28AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > I attach two patches to fix both (it could be squashed in a single > > commit as both are straightforward), for upcoming v13. > > Squashing both patches together makes the most sense in my opinion as > the same areas are reworked. I can notice that you have applied > pgindent, but the indentation got a bit messed up because the new enum > ReindexType is missing from typedefs.list. > > I have reworked a bit your patch as per the attached, tweaking a > couple of places like reordering the elements in ReindexType, > reviewing the indentation, etc. At the end I can see more reasons to > use multiple switch/case points as if we add more options in the > future then we have more code paths to take care of. These would > unlikely get forgotten, but there is no point to take this risk > either, and that would simplify future patches. It is also possible > to group some types together when assigning the object name similarly > to what's on HEAD. Thanks! I'm fine with the changes. The patch does not apply anymore, so here's a rebased version.
-
Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2019-06-29T02:24:49Z
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:25:00AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > The patch does not apply anymore, so here's a rebased version. Thanks for the rebase (and the reminder..). I'll look at that once v13 opens for business. -- Michael
-
Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2019-07-02T02:44:28Z
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 11:24:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks for the rebase (and the reminder..). I'll look at that once > v13 opens for business. And applied. -- Michael
-
Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2019-07-02T05:12:38Z
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:44 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 11:24:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Thanks for the rebase (and the reminder..). I'll look at that once > > v13 opens for business. > > And applied. Thanks!