Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> What parts of the code would need a once-over?  
> > A lot :-( ... probably every place that touches typtype or typelem would
> > need at least a look.  It'd be a good idea to take the opportunity to
> > start using macros for the values of typtype, as we do for relkind but
> > for some reason never adopted for typtype.
> I just realized that I need to check every usage of typtype to be sure
> that the enums patch is sane.  So, barring objection, I intend to take
> this opportunity to make the code stop referring directly to 'b', 'c'
> etc whereever possible.  Any objections to these names?
> #define       TYPTYPE_BASE            'b'
> #define       TYPTYPE_COMPOSITE       'c'
> #define       TYPTYPE_DOMAIN          'd'
> #define       TYPTYPE_ENUM            'e'
> #define       TYPTYPE_PSEUDO          'p'

I like macros.  ;-)

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to