On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:18:24AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 2:44 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.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.gs...@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/577206.1620628...@sss.pgh.pa.us -- Justin
