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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
