Re: Re: Abbreviated keys for Datum tuplesort

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> The changes that Andrew
>>> took issue with are utterly insignificant.
>>
>> Great. Then you will be utterly indifferent to which version gets committed.
>
> *shrug*
>
> You were the one that taught me to be bureaucratically minded about
> keeping code consistent at this fine a level. I think it's odd that
> you of all people are opposing me on this point, but whatever.

Sure, consistency is important. But sometimes there is more than one
thing that you can choose to be consistent with. IIUC, you're
complaining because somebody assigned the return value of a function
to a variable whose type matches the function's return type, rather
than assigning it to a variable of the same mismatching type used in
parallel code elsewhere. Which form of consistency to aim for in such
cases is fundamentally a judgement call. I'll have another look over
the patch and maybe I'll come around to your point of view, but you
don't seem very willing to concede the point that intelligent people
could disagree over what is most consistent here. I'm about as much
of a stickler for the details as you will find on this mailing list,
or possibly, in the observable universe, but even I'm not willing to
expend the amount of ink and emotional energy you have on whether a
variable that holds +1, 0, or -1 ought to be declared as "int" or
"int32". Does it matter? Yeah. Is it worth this much argument? No.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company