On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-03-11 04:50:45 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > We need to decide what to do about this. I disagree with Peter: I >> > think that regardless of stdbool, what we've got right now is sloppy >> > coding - bad style if nothing else. Furthermore, I think that while C >> > lets you use any non-zero value to represent true, our bool type is >> > supposed to contain only one of those two values. Therefore, I think >> > we should commit the full patch, back-patch it as far as somebody has >> > the energy for, and move on. But regardless, this patch can't keep >> > sitting in the CommitFest - we either have to take it or reject it, >> > and soon. > > I plan to commit something like this, unless there's very loud protest > from Peter's side.
So, can we get on with that, then? -- 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
