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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
