Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoahuL6iEWCxQX7xWMx4=7COAbGrH0rUFsxoVqpKtG+XLw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.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; }. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: