On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 07:13:20PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. ;-)
Macros are great. :) What say we put one in pre-emptively for TYPTYPE_ARRAY? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
