Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> Imo the code now is a bit odd, because we first switch (type) setting base,
> and then separately have branches for the different bases.
It'd be hard to merge, I think, given that the cases in the switch
don't line up one-for-one with the different bases. You could
probably do something involving falling through between different
cases, but I think that that would be a lot harder to read;
and I'm still of the opinion that micro-optimizing this code
is probably a waste of effort for our usage.
regards, tom lane
