| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use more CppAsString2() in pg_amcheck.c |
| Date: | 2024-11-26 00:49:04 |
| Message-ID: | Z0UbADft2IYRZVCK@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 06:25:46PM +0300, Karina Litskevich wrote:
> The patch looks good to me.
Thanks for the review.
> They are not identical: space before AND vs space at the end of the
> previous line. I'd say that it would be better if they were
> identical. Personally, I prefer the one with a space before AND.
> Though we have two more similar cases in lines 1974-2001:
>
> And I'm not sure how they should be handled if we choose a space
> before AND. Does the following still look fine?
>
> What do you think?
Both look the same to me, TBH. :D
The result in the queries generated is also the same before and after
the patch. I see the inconsistency in style, but I'm not sure that
it's worth bothering about that. Applied v2.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2024-11-26 00:50:45 | Re: branch-free tuplesort partitioning |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-11-26 00:48:58 | Re: Some dead code in get_param_path_clause_serials() |