On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I am not very convinced that this is an improvement, because you took
>>> what had been two hard-wired constants and replaced them with a symbol
>>> and a hard-wired constant.This is more prone to break, not less so.
>> I think it's kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other, but if you
>> feel strongly about it, revert the patch.
> I don't care enough to do that either, but I wanted to point out that
> it's pretty questionable whether this is a stylistic improvement.

Yeah, fair.  I think it depends on whether you think it is more likely
that people will (a) grep for PG_INT_MIN32 to find places where we do
overflow handling or (b) observe the close relationship between the
two constants on adjacent lines.  Probably I should have waited for
comments before committing, but I figured we wanted to avoid hardcoded
constants and didn't think much further.

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:

Reply via email to