Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I've attached a prototype conversion for two other such places. Which
> immediately pointed to a bug. And one harmless issue (using a pointer to
> size_t instead of ExprEvalOp* to represent the 'op' parameter), which
> you promptly copied...
> If I pushed a slightly cleaned up version of that, it should be fairly
> easy to adapt your code to it, I think?
I've now studied this patch and it seems sane to me, although
I wondered why you wrote "extern"s here:
@@ -48,6 +48,10 @@
PGFunction TypePGFunction;
size_t TypeSizeT;
bool TypeStorageBool;
+extern ExprStateEvalFunc TypeExprStateEvalFunc;
+ExprStateEvalFunc TypeExprStateEvalFunc;
+extern ExecEvalSubroutine TypeExecEvalSubroutine;
+ExecEvalSubroutine TypeExecEvalSubroutine;
NullableDatum StructNullableDatum;
AggState StructAggState;
The other variables in that file don't have that. Other than that nit,
please finish this up and push it so I can finish the generic-subscripting
patch.
> WRT the prototype, I think it may be worth removing most of the types
> from llvmjit.h. Worth keeping the most common ones, but most aren't used
> all the time so terseness doesn't matter that much, and
> the llvm_pg_var_type() would suffice.
Hm, that would mean redoing llvm_pg_var_type() often wouldn't it?
I don't have a very good feeling for how expensive that is, so I'm
not sure if this seems like a good idea or not.
regards, tom lane
