On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > New version that repairs a defective test case.
>
> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
Thanks.
> + 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; }.
I value the savings in vertical space more than the lost idiomaticness. This
decision is 90+% subjective, so I cannot blame you for concluding otherwise.
I do know the feeling of looking at PostgreSQL source code and wishing the
author had not attempted to conserve every line.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
