From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: APR 1.0 released |
Date: | 2004-09-09 05:54:41 |
Message-ID: | 200409090554.i895sfD09150@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > I don't understand most of this patch. What difference does changing the
> > preprocessor test order make?
>
> I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look
> alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a";
> the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the !
> operator...
Right, just consistency.
> However, per Michael's report there's some oversight in this patch.
> I'm not presently ready to update to CVS tip; who can find the problem?
I have not seen the report yet. I had no plan to change the behavior
except for Cygwin.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-09-09 07:09:31 | translations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-09 04:07:53 | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |