On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

No, not really.  I don't feel like it's an improvement, but you and
Alvaro obviously do, so have at it.

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