On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes <mes...@postgresql.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >>> There are some "== true" in the codes, but they might not be safe >>> because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? > > Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces "boolean == true" with "boolean". > I didn't touch "== false" unless they are not in pairs of comparisons > with true because comparison with false is a valid C code. > > Note that I also changed "boolean != true" in pg_upgrade, > but I didn't change ones in xlog.c because it might check > corrupted fields in control files. > >>> src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(310): >>> ptr2ext[3] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c'; >> I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead >> of >> int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them. > > I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type > from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable?
I looked at this but found that part a bit too clever for its own good. So committed the rest, plus an additional one-line change to psql's print.c to avoid making the two accesses to format->wrap_right_pointer inconsistent with each other. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
