On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:07 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:39:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > > > I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to > > > > your changes. > > > > > > > I couldn't convince myself that this is worth pushing though; either we > > > > push it to all branches (which seems unwarranted) or we create > > > > back-patching hazards. > > > > > > Yeah ... an advantage of the if/else coding is that it'd likely be > > > simple to extend to cover additional statement types, should we ever > > > wish to do that. The rendering you have here is nice and compact, > > > but it would not scale up well. > > > > That makes sense. But that part is not in Amul's patch -- he was only > > on about removing the is_foreign_table Boolean. If I remove the if/else > > block change, does the rest of the patch looks something we'd want to > > have? I kinda agree that the redundant variable is "ugly". Is it worth > > removing? My hunch is no. > > Getting rid of a redundant, boolean variable is good not because it's more > efficient but because it's one fewer LOC to read and maintain (and an > opportunity for inconsistency, I suppose).
Yes. > Also, this is a roundabout and too-verbose way to invert a boolean: > | transformCheckConstraints(&cxt, !is_foreign_table ? true : false); I agree to remove only the redundant variable, is_foreign_table but not the if else block as Tom said: it's not scalable. We don't need to back patch this change. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
