Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:18:24AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 2:44 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:14:50PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I can see several instances of the
> > > "eval-bool ? true : false" pattern after fd0625c7a9 that are not in
> > > the latest 0002.
> >
> > Yep. There are more of these, and I have just looked at some of them
> > as of the patches proposed. What was sent looked clean enough to
> > progress a bit and be done with it.
>
> While reading the decode.c I found the extra parentheses and arrived
> at this thread.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to search for it - well done ;)

> The discussion seems to get inactive now but one (0001
> patch) out of two patches Justin proposed [1] is not committed yet and
> there seems no CF entry for this item (0002 patch already got
> committed, fd0625c7a9). 0001 patch can be cleanly applied and looks
> good to me.

Note that I also included it here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210924215827.GS831@telsasoft.com

Michael seems prefer writing (() != 0) in more cases than other people, so
didn't care for that patch.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/577206.1620628321@sss.pgh.pa.us

--
Justin