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