I wrote:
> * WRITE_OID_ARRAY and WRITE_BOOL_ARRAY needed extension to handle a null
> array pointer. I think we should make all the WRITE_FOO_ARRAY macros
> work alike, so I added that to all of them. I first tried to make the
> rest work like WRITE_INDEX_ARRAY, but that failed because readfuncs.
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 18.07.22 18:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm kind of tempted to mount an effort to get rid of as many of
>> pathnodes.h's "read_write_ignore" annotations as possible. Some are
>> necessary to prevent infinite recursion, and others represent considered
>> judgments that the
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> It seems like a reasonable idea, but I don't know enough to judge the
> wider ramifications of it. But one thing that the patch should also do,
> is switch to using the l*_node() functions instead of manual casting.
Hm, I didn't bother with tha
On 18.07.22 18:08, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm kind of tempted to mount an effort to get rid of as many of
pathnodes.h's "read_write_ignore" annotations as possible. Some are
necessary to prevent infinite recursion, and others represent considered
judgments that they'd bloat node dumps more than they're
Tom Lane writes:
> I got annoyed just now upon finding that pprint() applied to the planner's
> "root" pointer doesn't dump root->agginfos or root->aggtransinfos. That's
> evidently because AggInfo and AggTransInfo aren't proper Nodes, just bare
> structs, which presumably is because somebody co
I got annoyed just now upon finding that pprint() applied to the planner's
"root" pointer doesn't dump root->agginfos or root->aggtransinfos. That's
evidently because AggInfo and AggTransInfo aren't proper Nodes, just bare
structs, which presumably is because somebody couldn't be bothered to
write
