From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 22:05:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaCYsGLKJhy=J4vnukCGXcF8rJ2RBFnb2QFOyY3oBksjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-25 22:07:40 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-25 21:57:08 | Re: WIP patch for parameterized inner paths |