From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families |
Date: | 2012-01-25 22:45:15 |
Message-ID: | 1327531378-sup-5355@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 19:05:44 -0300 2012:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > New version that repairs a defective test case.
> >>
> >> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
> >>
> >> + for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
> >> + ret = (!IsPolymorphicType(get_opclass_input_type(classObjectId[i
> >> + irel->rd_att->attrs[i]->atttypid == typeObjectId[i]);
> >>
> >> ...but I am not sure whether we have any formal policy against it, so
> >> I just committed it as-is for now. I would have surrounded the loop
> >> with an if (ret) block and written the body of the loop as if
> >> (condition) { ret = false; break; }.
> >
> > I find that code way too clever.
>
> The way he wrote it, or the way I proposed to write it?
The code as committed.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 22:46:39 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-25 22:07:40 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |