Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?