Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2012-01-26 04:53:10
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mi 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.

Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
that this commit broke the buildfarm?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-01-26 05:27:48
Subject: Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-01-26 04:22:26
Subject: Re: WAL Restore process during recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group