On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> (On the other hand, if it were written the other way already, I'd also
> argue to leave it like that. Basically, this sort of change is just not
> worth troubling over. It doesn't improve things meaningfully and it
> creates back-patching hazards.)
This argumen
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 06:35:28PM +0530, Vaibhav Dalvi wrote:
>> If my understanding is correct then '++' is not needed in the
>> above highlighted statement which is leading to overhead.
> I don't think the integer increment during pg_upgrade is a meaningful
> overhead.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 06:35:28PM +0530, Vaibhav Dalvi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The function quote_identifier has extra post-increment operation as
> highlighted below,
>
> char *
> quote_identifier(const char *s)
> {
>char *result = pg_malloc(strlen(s) * 2 + 3);
>char *r = result;
>
>*
Hi,
The function quote_identifier has extra post-increment operation as
highlighted below,
char *
quote_identifier(const char *s)
{
char *result = pg_malloc(strlen(s) * 2 + 3);
char *r = result;
*r++ = '"';
while (*s)
{
if (*s == '"')
*r++ = *s;
*r++ = *s;
