On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > That's fair, I can see those reasons. Nevertheless, I do think it was a > bad tradeoff. A little bit of repetition would be better here, or we can > extract the common parts to smaller functions. > > I came up with the attached: > > 25 files changed, 1710 insertions(+), 1113 deletions(-) > > So yeah, it's more code, and there's some repetition, but I think this > is more readable. Some of that is extra boilerplate because I split the > implementations to separate files, and I also added tests.
Adding tests is great. I'm unenthusiastic about the rest, but I don't really care enough to argue. What's the goal here, anyway? I mean, why bother? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
