On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 2:44 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:14:50PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I can see several instances of the > > "eval-bool ? true : false" pattern after fd0625c7a9 that are not in > > the latest 0002. > > Yep. There are more of these, and I have just looked at some of them > as of the patches proposed. What was sent looked clean enough to > progress a bit and be done with it.
While reading the decode.c I found the extra parentheses and arrived at this thread. The discussion seems to get inactive now but one (0001 patch) out of two patches Justin proposed [1] is not committed yet and there seems no CF entry for this item (0002 patch already got committed, fd0625c7a9). 0001 patch can be cleanly applied and looks good to me. Also, regarding "x ? true: false" pattern where x is guaranteed to yield a boolean, I found other examples other than Horiguchi-san mentioned[2]. I've attached the patch to remove them. Regards, [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210906001110.GF26465%40telsasoft.com [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210909.141450.11969674682374713.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
remove_unnecessary_ternary_operations.patch
Description: Binary data
