From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] More Coccinelli cleanups |
Date: | 2010-11-01 15:56:02 |
Message-ID: | 20975.1288626962@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
>> patch 0001 turns (a - b == 0) into (a == b) and similarly with !=
>> patch 0002 applies the same to operators >, >=, <, <=
>>
>> I'm well aware that there's a point where code cleanups defeat their
>> purpose and become a burden. So this will probably be my last one,
>> I'll go to doing productive things instead. :)
> I like the 0002 patch better than the 0001 patch.
I'm not really thrilled with either of them, as I don't think they are
doing much to improve readability. As for 0002, as you say, at least
the change in bgwriter.c is actively breaking things. I'm not eager to
go through and see which of the other changes there might be affecting
overflow or signed-vs-unsigned comparison behavior.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-01 16:02:20 | Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-01 15:28:39 | Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger |