On 3/5/21 1:43 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 09:45:24AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 03:34:08PM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote: >>> * I'm not sure I understand the need for 0001. Wasn't there an earlier >>> version of this patch that just did it by re-populating the type >>> array, but which still had it as an array rather than turning it into >>> a list? Making it a list falsifies some of the comments and >>> function/variable name choices in that file. >> >> This part is from me. >> >> I can review the names if it's desired , but it'd be fine to fall back to the >> earlier patch. I thought a pglist was cleaner, but it's not needed. > > This updates the preliminary patches to address the issues Dean raised. > > One advantage of using a pglist is that we can free it by calling > list_free_deep(Typ), rather than looping to free each of its elements. > But maybe for bootstrap.c it doesn't matter, and we can just write: > | Typ = NULL; /* Leak the old Typ array */ >
Thanks. I'll switch this in the next version of the patch series. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
