From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id EAA1321934 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xRYGg9Ee9uQl for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpng2.m.smailru.net (smtpng2.m.smailru.net [94.100.179.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id A4EEF21920 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:31:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] sql: do not use OP_Delete+OP_Insert for UPDATES References: <855d85cccdd7e33aa4b49988c5165512d5fa94ad.1546079994.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <92C91EEB-6934-40C4-96C2-46487F97A697@tarantool.org> From: Kirill Shcherbatov Message-ID: <0dc44aab-94b0-c57d-686f-442375d83155@tarantool.org> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:31:50 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <92C91EEB-6934-40C4-96C2-46487F97A697@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Nikita Pettik >> +/** Callback to forward and error from mpstream methods. */ >> +static inline void >> +mpstream_encode_error(void *error_ctx) >> +{ >> + *(bool *)error_ctx = true; >> +} > > Is this artefact after previous patch? Ugum, it was already fixed on branch. >> +void >> +mpstream_encode_vdbe_mem(struct mpstream *stream, struct Mem *var); >> + > The same question. Here I did it consciously. This routine was just a helper in previous patch so may be static that likelly doesn't require function call by pointer. In this patch it became reusable so I have to define it's signature in header. But I've already moved this change to previous path to decrease changes. It doesn't really matter. > The rest is Ok now. > I didn’t carefully check test fixes tho, only looked through, since they > consist of monotonic changes, but I believe you did it :)