At Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:13:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I think that the code is perfectly readable as it is and that this
> > change makes it less so.
>
> Yeah, after a quick look through this patch I'm unimpressed too.
> The new code is strictly longer, and it requires
Robert Haas writes:
> I think that the code is perfectly readable as it is and that this
> change makes it less so.
Yeah, after a quick look through this patch I'm unimpressed too.
The new code is strictly longer, and it requires the introduction
of distracting "!" and "&" operators in many place
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:33 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> We have (StringInfo::len == 0) checks at many places. I thought it
> would be better to wrap that into a function isEmptyStringInfo() to
> make those checks more readable and also abstract the logic to check
> emptiness of a StringInfo. I thi
Hi All,
We have (StringInfo::len == 0) checks at many places. I thought it
would be better to wrap that into a function isEmptyStringInfo() to
make those checks more readable and also abstract the logic to check
emptiness of a StringInfo. I think this will be useful to extensions
outside core which
