Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
