On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>> There are some "== true" in the codes, but they might not be safe
>> because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them?
Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces "boolean == true" with "boolean".
I didn't touch "== false" unless they are not in pairs of comparisons
with true because comparison with false is a valid C code.
Note that I also changed "boolean != true" in pg_upgrade,
but I didn't change ones in xlog.c because it might check
corrupted fields in control files.
>> ptr2ext = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c';
> I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead of
> int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them.
I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type
from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Vaibhav Kaushal||Date: 2010-11-04 02:30:17|
|Subject: Can we talk about a version which has already been developed?|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-11-04 01:27:33|
|Subject: Re: timestamp of the last replayed transaction|