On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Yeah, I've noticed this inconsistency too. I doubt we want to change
> > the macro definition or its name, but +1 for expanding the comment.
> > Your proposed wording seems sufficient.
>
> +1
OK, committed. I assume
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Yeah, I've noticed this inconsistency too. I doubt we want to change
> the macro definition or its name, but +1 for expanding the comment.
> Your proposed wording seems sufficient.
+1
>> There is some kind of broader confusion here, I think, because we
>> refer in many
On 2019-May-10, Robert Haas wrote:
> Obviously, this macro does not do what it claims to do:
>
> /*
> * check to see if the ATT'th bit of an array of 8-bit bytes is set.
> */
> #define att_isnull(ATT, BITS) (!((BITS)[(ATT) >> 3] & (1 << ((ATT) & 0x07
>
> OK, I lied. It's not at all obviou
