On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10/29/17 08:50, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I spotted a couple of other things while looking at your patches and >> the code tree. >> >> - return (ginCompareItemPointers(&btree->itemptr, iptr) > 0) ? TRUE : >> FALSE; >> + return (ginCompareItemPointers(&btree->itemptr, iptr) > 0) ? true : >> false; >> You could simplify that at the same time by removing such things. The >> "false : true" pattern is less frequent than the "true : false" >> pattern. > > I have found many more instances like that. It might be worth > simplifying a bit, but that sounds like a separate undertaking.
Yeah, I just mentioned one for reference. And I can see 66 instances. It may be not worth changing either to simplify back-patching. >> Some comments in the code still mention FALSE or TRUE: >> - hashsearch.c uses FALSE in some comments. >> - In execExpr.c, ExecCheck mentions TRUE. > > That one is an SQL TRUE, so I left it. Oops. You are right. I tried to be careful with what was referring to SQL and C. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
