Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> What parts of the code would need a once-over? > > > A lot :-( ... probably every place that touches typtype or typelem would > > need at least a look. It'd be a good idea to take the opportunity to > > start using macros for the values of typtype, as we do for relkind but > > for some reason never adopted for typtype. > > I just realized that I need to check every usage of typtype to be sure > that the enums patch is sane. So, barring objection, I intend to take > this opportunity to make the code stop referring directly to 'b', 'c' > etc whereever possible. Any objections to these names? > > #define TYPTYPE_BASE 'b' > #define TYPTYPE_COMPOSITE 'c' > #define TYPTYPE_DOMAIN 'd' > #define TYPTYPE_ENUM 'e' > #define TYPTYPE_PSEUDO 'p'
I like macros. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
