Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to credit anyone > as a reviewer, but hopefully nobody's going to mind that too much > considering this is a purely mechanical patch I wrote in 20 minutes.
Do you have any particular objection to taking the next step of removing enum InhOption in favor of making inhOpt a bool? It seems to me that stuff like - bool recurse = interpretInhOption(rv->inhOpt); + bool recurse = (rv->inhOpt == INH_YES); just begs the question of why it's not simply bool recurse = rv->inh; Certainly a reader who did not know the history would be confused at the useless-looking complexity. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers