On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I am not very convinced that this is an improvement, because you took
>>> what had been two hard-wired constants and replaced them with a symbol
>>> and a hard-wired constant.This is more prone to break, not less so.
>
>> I think it's kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other, but if you
>> feel strongly about it, revert the patch.
>
> I don't care enough to do that either, but I wanted to point out that
> it's pretty questionable whether this is a stylistic improvement.
Yeah, fair. I think it depends on whether you think it is more likely
that people will (a) grep for PG_INT_MIN32 to find places where we do
overflow handling or (b) observe the close relationship between the
two constants on adjacent lines. Probably I should have waited for
comments before committing, but I figured we wanted to avoid hardcoded
constants and didn't think much further.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
