| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Date: | 2016-02-12 16:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | 30852.1455295712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On February 12, 2016 5:29:44 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We should standardize on the "((var & FLAG) != 0)"
>> pattern, which works reliably in all cases.
> That's what the second version of my patch, and I presume Michael's updated one as well, does. I think the only open question is how far to backpatch. While annoying work, I think we should go all the way.
I don't object to that, if someone wants to do the work. A good argument
for it is that we'd otherwise be laying a nasty trap for future
back-patched bug fixes, which might well rely on the cleaned-up behavior.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yury Zhuravlev | 2016-02-12 16:51:26 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-12 16:46:36 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |