On 2016-04-05 11:38:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > IMO the code is wrong.
I'm a bit confused how an intentionally duplicated block makes code wrong... But whatever, I found it to be clerarer that way, but apparently I'm alone. > The current arrangement looks bizantine to me, for no reason. If we > think that one of the two branches might do something additional to the > list deletion, surely that will be in a separate stanza with its own > comment; and if we ever want to remove the list deletion from one of the > two cases (something that strikes me as unlikely) then we will need to > fix the comment, too. You realize it's two different lists they're deleted in the different branches? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
