On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 07:13:20PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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. ;-)
Macros are great. :)
What say we put one in pre-emptively for TYPTYPE_ARRAY?
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
