9 Commits (da53be23d1c5e529675e958eaee54cfed4e4dbac)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Tom Lane	8255c7a5ee	Phase 2 pgindent run for v12. ... Switch to 2.1 version of pg_bsd_indent. This formats multiline function declarations "correctly", that is with additional lines of parameter declarations indented to match where the first line's left parenthesis is. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug@mail.gmail.com	7 years ago
Bruce Momjian	97c39498e5	Update copyright for 2019 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4	7 years ago
Bruce Momjian	9d4649ca49	Update copyright for 2018 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3	8 years ago
Tom Lane	c7b8998ebb	Phase 2 of pgindent updates. ... Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us	9 years ago
Tom Lane	e3860ffa4d	Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0. ... The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak. The main changes visible in this commit are: * Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations. * No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts, sizeof, or offsetof. * No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers. * Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely. * Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed with no space separating them from the code. * Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels. * Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less than the expected column 33. On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in indent itself. There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the changes as much as practical. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us	9 years ago
Bruce Momjian	1d25779284	Update copyright via script for 2017	9 years ago
Tom Lane	d50183c578	Inline the easy cases in MakeExpandedObjectReadOnly(). ... This attempts to buy back some of whatever performance we lost from fixing bug #14174 by inlining the initial checks in MakeExpandedObjectReadOnly() into the callers. We can do that in a macro without creating multiple- evaluation hazards, so it's pretty much free notationally; and the amount of code added to callers should be minimal as well. (Testing a value can't take many more instructions than passing it to a subroutine.) Might as well inline DatumIsReadWriteExpandedObject() while we're at it. This is an ABI break for callers, so it doesn't seem safe to put into 9.5, but I see no reason not to do it in HEAD.	10 years ago
Bruce Momjian	ee94300446	Update copyright for 2016 ... Backpatch certain files through 9.1	10 years ago
Tom Lane	1dc5ebc907	Support "expanded" objects, particularly arrays, for better performance. ... This patch introduces the ability for complex datatypes to have an in-memory representation that is different from their on-disk format. On-disk formats are typically optimized for minimal size, and in any case they can't contain pointers, so they are often not well-suited for computation. Now a datatype can invent an "expanded" in-memory format that is better suited for its operations, and then pass that around among the C functions that operate on the datatype. There are also provisions (rudimentary as yet) to allow an expanded object to be modified in-place under suitable conditions, so that operations like assignment to an element of an array need not involve copying the entire array. The initial application for this feature is arrays, but it is not hard to foresee using it for other container types like JSON, XML and hstore. I have hopes that it will be useful to PostGIS as well. In this initial implementation, a few heuristics have been hard-wired into plpgsql to improve performance for arrays that are stored in plpgsql variables. We would like to generalize those hacks so that other datatypes can obtain similar improvements, but figuring out some appropriate APIs is left as a task for future work. (The heuristics themselves are probably not optimal yet, either, as they sometimes force expansion of arrays that would be better left alone.) Preliminary performance testing shows impressive speed gains for plpgsql functions that do element-by-element access or update of large arrays. There are other cases that get a little slower, as a result of added array format conversions; but we can hope to improve anything that's annoyingly bad. In any case most applications should see a net win. Tom Lane, reviewed by Andres Freund	11 years ago