On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:45:22AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Oct-10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:54:12AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> The committer of such a change will get a lot of flak for changing the
>>> #include requirements for code that calls that f
On 2018-Oct-10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:54:12AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The committer of such a change will get a lot of flak for changing the
> > #include requirements for code that calls that function, though.
>
> So the patch has been switched to rejected..
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:54:12AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The committer of such a change will get a lot of flak for changing the
> #include requirements for code that calls that function, though.
So the patch has been switched to rejected...
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP sign
On 2018-Oct-09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:47:48AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > The difference on 10M calls is about 300ms - it is about 6%.
>
> This number gives a good argument for rejecting this patch. I am not
> usually against code beautification, but that's a hi
út 9. 10. 2018 v 13:20 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:47:48AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > The difference on 10M calls is about 300ms - it is about 6%.
>
> This number gives a good argument for rejecting this patch. I am not
> usually against code beautificati
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:47:48AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> The difference on 10M calls is about 300ms - it is about 6%.
This number gives a good argument for rejecting this patch. I am not
usually against code beautification, but that's a high price to pay for
just some refactoring. On top
Hi
út 9. 10. 2018 v 5:28 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:22:55PM +, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I tested this patch. This patch removes some duplicate rows, what is
> > good - on second hand, after this patch, the textToQualifiedNameList
> > does one more copy o
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:22:55PM +, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I tested this patch. This patch removes some duplicate rows, what is
> good - on second hand, after this patch, the textToQualifiedNameList
> does one more copy of input string more. I looked where this function
> is used, and I don'
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, failed
Spec compliant: tested, failed
Documentation:tested, failed
Hi
I tested this patch. This patch removes some duplicate ro
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:49:26 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time)
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:44:12 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote
> in <20180824204412.150979ae6b283ddb639f9...@sraoss.co.jp>
> > When working on other patch[1], I found there are almost same
> > functions, texttoQualifiedN
Hello.
At Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:44:12 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote in
<20180824204412.150979ae6b283ddb639f9...@sraoss.co.jp>
> When working on other patch[1], I found there are almost same
> functions, texttoQualifiedNameList() and stringToQualifiedNameList().
> The only difference is the argument typ
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:44:12 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When working on other patch[1], I found there are almost same
> functions, texttoQualifiedNameList() and stringToQualifiedNameList().
> The only difference is the argument type, text or char*. I don't know
> why these functions are
12 matches
Mail list logo
